Barriers to entry

I’ve been taking a lot of flack from self-defined “one-issue” voters lately. What’s annoying is that these are really not one-issue people at all, but they think they are. They (most of them) think “conservative” is an issue and the Tea Party defines “conservative.”

I refuse to vote the self-identified “conservative” candidate in the Virginia gubernatorial race.  Because every gun-rights group in the Commonwealth has endorsed him, I’ve been called stupid, a traitor, a “liberal” (as a pejorative, of course), misguided, and other terms.

What many of these people – people who have known me for years – fail to realize is that gun-rights is simply the barrier to entry.   After that, you other positions come in to play.  If you don’t support my gun rights, I don’t recognize your “right” to my vote, pure and simple.  That lets out Terry McAuliffe, though I have a strong handful of other reasons.  My only other absolute barrier is a conviction that the Tennessee constitution got it part right (“Whereas Ministers of the Gospel are by their profession, dedicated to God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their functions; therefore, no Minister of the Gospel, or priest of any denomination whatever, shall be eligible to a seat in either House of the Legislature.”) and I’d carry that to “any elected office”.  Those are the barriers to my vote.

After the barriers comes the curtain – the other civil rights.  Candidates can pass the curtain if I disagree with them on these issues, but only if they have very very strong credentials and a record of respecting others’ beliefs and practices.  Among these are the right to marry the person I choose; the right to confer with my doctor and elect those medical procedures best for me; the right to speak my mind even if that speech might offend your god; the right to be treated equally under the law; and the right to insist that your religious preference not affect mine.    In other words, believe what you want, but don’t restrict others.  After that, I assess life experiences and personal characteristics.  And I consider whether my votes can help keep the government split.  That is, all else considered, let’s assure that no one party controls the Governor’s mansion and both houses of the legislature.

It’s that latter set of criteria that many of my gun-rights acquaintances don’t understand.  I believe that in their minds, those rights are inextricably linked, and individuals can have differing opinions on each and every one of them.  It’s a matter of prioritization, and deciding which have to be met and which can be squishy.  In my mind, the gun-rights question must be met, and a combination of the others must be met.  Cuccinelli can’t meet any of them.

Both barriers are in place for LG.  That’s a shame, because the LG is an important person in Virginia, with tie-breaking authority in our evenly divided State Senate.  “None of the Above” as a write-in is the only option.  I feel this is a cop-out, but it is the only way an American has to show that no candidate is acceptable.   We are literally prevented by election law from expressing our opinions.  Even a “none of the above” is seen only in the category of “write-ins” – also-rans – unless there are enough of them the same.   If all voters would write in, maybe the message would be carried, but there are just too many who are happy to select all the people with the same letter after their names, no matter their qualifications.

I am still seeking the election that has a slate of candidates without barriers.

Advertisements

There are Other Candidates

Up front — I think the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) is the most awesome grassroots organization imaginable, and I’m proud to be a member.   The work the organization does for the rights of gun owners in Virginia is immeasurable, and the Board of Directors is incredible, doing ever so much more than just guiding.  In fact, I have no problem saying if you aren’t a member, go join before reading further.  If you really, truly cannot prioritize $25/year, at least sign up for the VA-ALERT.

So it is difficult for me to criticize, and this is meant only constructively, with no bitterness and only disappointment.  Recently, the organization released a VA-ALERT (if you aren’t a subscriber, shame on you) quoted below in its entirety.  I’d link you to the VA-ALERT, but I can’t find it, so I can’t expect readers to.

The disappointment I felt was that the VA-ALERT covered only two candidates for President.  Many of us know that in Virginia, there will be five candidates on the ballot.  Incumbent Barack Obama represents the Democrats; former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney the Republicans; former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson the Libertarians, Dr. Jill Stein the Green Party, and former Congressman Virgil Goode represents the Constitution Party this year.  The Constitution Party is not on enough state ballots to have a mathematical chance of obtaining enough electoral votes to win the election.  The other four parties have a mathematical, if long-shot, possibility.

As noted in the VA-ALERT, surveys were mailed to all five candidates (in fairness, only recently – within the past couple of weeks).  Only Virgil Goode amongst the presidential candidates has returned his.

Two of the four candidates are profiled in the piece below.  The two with the lowest probability of winning were not profiled.  In the interest of NON-partisanship, I provide additional information.

Please vote your conscience — but VOTE.

================================

Candidate Jill Stein, Green Party

PRO:   (I didn’t find any; perhaps there are some.)

CON: (Summary: Favors strong regulation of gun ownership; http://www.jillstein.org does not mention guns at all)

QUESTION: “Should most adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun?”

ANSWER: “It is more dangerous to the occupants of a home to have a gun than not. It’s more likely that you’ll be injured by your own gun than that you’ll be defended against some intruder with that gun. It’s an enormous public health problem in our cities– there are tragedies every day where young people are being shot, as victims of gun crimes. It’s tragic. We’re not arguing that nobody should have a gun–but public safety should factor into constraints.” “OnTheIssues Interview with Jill Stein,” www.ontheissues.org, Dec. 21, 2011

QUESTION: “Are more federal regulations on guns and ammunition needed?”

ANSWER:  “For public safety, gun ownership should be appropriately regulated.” Project Vote Smart “Political Courage Test,” www.votesmart.org (accessed July 13, 2012)

QUESTION: President Obama, during the Democratic National Convention in 2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. What has your administration done or plan to do to limit the availability of assault weapons? (Jill Stein was asked the same questions the major-party candidates were asked in debate.)

ANSWER: “We certainly need an assault weapons ban, but we need more than that. There are some 260 people every day who are injured or killed by gun violence, so it’s very important that we ban assault weapons, for starters, but there are other steps that need to be taken quickly. Local communities need to be able to regulate guns, as needed, to deal with their violence. So, we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. We need background checks, so that the mentally ill are not possessing and using guns. And we need to end the gun show loopholes, as well, because there’s far too much violence from guns, which is not needed.”

=============================================

Candidate Gary Johnson, Libertarian Party

PRO:

QUESTION: “Should most adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun?” ANSWER: “I’m an ardent supporter of the 2nd amendment and openly advocated conceal carry as Governor. It was a new concept at the time, but I believed it would result in less crime – a fact borne out by the statistics.” “Guns Must Never Be Up for Grabs,” www.garyjohnson2012.com (accessed Oct. 13, 2011)

QUESTION: Are more federal regulations on guns and ammunition needed?” ANSWER: “Now, the DOJ’s [Department of Justice’s] plan to address gun trafficking is to require law-abiding citizens in border states to be reported and entered into a federal database for buying perfectly legal rifles from licensed dealers. Not only will this requirement do absolutely nothing to curb violence on either side of the border, it is yet another unacceptable infringement on fundamental 2nd Amendment rights. It is an outrage that this Administration is using border violence as an excuse to add the names of more law-abiding gun owners to their database. The President and his Attorney General need to get off the backs of American gun owners, and focus on policies that will actually work to stop border violence – without eroding basic constitutional rights.” “Governor Johnson Calls Department of Justice Reporting Requirement an Outrage,” www.garyjohnson2012.com, July 13, 2011

QUESTION: President Obama, during the Democratic National Convention in 2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. What has your administration done or planned to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?

ANSWER: Banning certain categories of firearms or otherwise restricting our constitutional right to own them will not make us safer. Giving up our hard-won freedoms in the guise of safety will hardly make us safer or more free. Instead, we must affirm that the Second Amendment is an individual right and that gun rights are just as important to liberty as are freedom of speech and religion.  (http://www.policymic.com/articles/16793/gary-johnson-presidential-debate-what-the-libertarian-nominee-would-have-said-at-the-debate-last-night/250781)

QUOTE: The Second Amendment: Individual or Collective Right? “I don’t believe there should be any restrictions when it comes to firearms. None.” April 20, 2011, Slate Magazine QUOTE: “If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. The first people who are going to be in line to turn in their guns are law-abiding citizens. Criminals are going to be left with guns. I believe that concealed carry is a way of reducing gun violence.” 12 Nov, 2000, An Interview with Playboy magazine.

CON: ( I didn’t find any; perhaps there are some.)

===========================================

VCDL’S VA-ALERT of November second:

VCDL cannot endorse candidates, but we can look at their records, their 
statements, and their VCDL surveys (or lack thereof).  It is NOT our job to be a 
cheerleader for any candidate or any Party.  We give you the scoop and you 
decide on where your vote will go. 

Keep in mind that the U.S. Senate is critical to protecting gun owners from any 
hare-brained gun-control schemes that might come from the U.N.  The Senate is 
also critical in vetting Presidential appointments to the Supreme Court, of 
which there is probably going to be at least one during the next four years.  
Currently we have only a single vote between us and some real problems for our 
gun rights. 

Here is some information about the candidates for President and for U.S. Senator 
from Virginia. 

PRESIDENTIAL RACE 

President Obama 

Positive: 

* As President, Obama signed a bill with an amendment to allow gun owners to 
carry in National Parks.  This vote is strongly moderated by the fact that the 
main bill had nothing to do with guns and was a bill that Obama wanted to see 
passed.  Without a line-item veto capability, he had to either kill the entire 
bill or sign it with the pro-gun amendment attached.  He chose to sign it.  

* It was a similar situation with another bill and an amendment to allow guns to 
be transported on AMTRAK.  Gun owners seemed to be simply along for the ride on 
that bill, too. 

Negative: 

* President Obama did not return the VCDL Federal Candidate Survey 

* In the debates with Romney, Obama confirmed that he wanted the ban on "assault 
weapons" in his next term and hinted that he wanted a ban on inexpensive 
handguns, too.  Not good news for poor people. 

* President Obama reversed the U.S.'s long standing position of opposing any 
U.N. gun bans. 

* A reporter documented the Brady Campaign bragging about President Obama 
telling them that he was working on gun control "under the radar."  

*  The news was filled with how Mexican Drug Cartels were getting 90% of their 
firearms from the U.S.  Using the excuse of the drug cartels getting those guns, 
the Obama Administration ordered the BATFE and gun dealers to report all sales 
of two or more semi-automatic rifles sold to the same person in a five-day 
period in states bordering Mexico.  Upon inspection, the 90% number turned out 
to be massively inflated and was clearly presented so as to deceive Americans on 
the true number of guns going to Mexico from the U.S. 

* A secret project called Fast & Furious under the Obama Administration was 
uncovered after a U.S. Border Patrol officer was murdered by someone using a gun 
that was one of thousands of "assault weapons" and other guns smuggled to the 
Mexican drug cartels with the blessings of the Obama Administration.  The clear 
intent of Fast & Furious was to falsely accuse U.S. gun dealers of smuggling and 
to drum up support from the U.S. public for a ban on "assault weapons" and to 
expand the required reporting on multiple semi-automatic rifle sales. 

* President Obama selected two very anti-liberty Supreme Court candidates that 
were later confirmed. 

* President Obama's Attorney General Holder said early on that the 
Administration wanted a ban on "assault weapons," but quickly withdrew that 
comment after the trial balloon was not received well.  

* Before he was President, Obama sat on the Joyce Foundation Board of Directors 
- an organization that funds anti-gun efforts around the U.S. 

* As an Illinois state Senator, Obama's voting record and positions were 
absolutely dismal on guns.  There didn't seem to be any gun control that Obama 
didn't support.  

- 

Mitt Romney 

Positive: 

* In the debates with Obama, Romney said that he did not believe that any kind 
of firearm should be banned and that he supported enforcing current laws.  

* During his Presidential campaign, Romney has not called for any kind of gun 
control. 

* Presidential candidate Romney addressed the annual NRA convention (a positive, 
but not a strong one). 

* Presidential candidate Romney has publicly said he does NOT support a U.N. 
treaty that would ban guns. 

Negative: 

* Did not return the VCDL Federal Candidate Survey. 

* (Closer to neutral) As Governor of Massachusetts, Romney signed an extension 
of the "assault weapon ban," but the bill contained improvements and protections 
wanted by gun-rights groups, no new guns were banned, and the bill passed with 
the blessing of gun-rights groups. 

SENATORIAL RACE 

Tim Kaine 

Positive: 

* As Governor, Kaine signed a few minor gun-rights bills to either clarify 
existing law or to improve the CHP application process.  

* Governor Kaine signed one strong bill (allowing CHP holders to have a 
concealed handgun on K-12 school property as long as they stay in their vehicle) 
that had passed BOTH houses by a VETO-PROOF majority. 

Negative: 

* Kaine has refused to return the VCDL Federal Candidate Survey. 

* As Governor, Kaine vetoed the restaurant-ban repeal TWICE.  I cannot think of 
a single pro-gun bill being vetoed by any other Governor since VCDL has existed. 

* As Governor, Kaine vetoed a bill to allow a non-CHP holder to have a loaded 
gun in a locked container or compartment in a vehicle. 

* As Governor, Kaine vetoed a bill to clarify that a person who is not hunting 
can have a loaded gun on public highways. 

* As Governor, Kaine vetoed a bill to allow a person without a CHP to carry on 
their own property outside of their curtilage areas. 

* As Governor, Kaine pushed hard, using a lot of political capital, to get a 
"gun show loophole" bill passed into law.  He even ordered the Superintendent of 
the State Police to testify at the General Assembly in favor of the bill. 

* The Attorney General ruled that State Parks had no authority to ban open 
carry.  Governor Kaine ordered State Parks to ignore that ruling and to keep the 
open carry ban in place. 

* As Mayor of the city of Richmond, Kaine actually used tax-payer money to fund 
buses to take gun-haters to the Million Mom March in D.C. in 2000.  When he was 
called on that illegal move, he paid for the buses out of his own pocket. 

- 

George Allen 

Positive: 

*  Allen HAS returned the VCDL Federal Candidate Survey pro-gun. 

*  As Governor, Allen signed Virginia's first "Shall Issue" CHP law into effect. 

*  As Governor, Allen successfully modified the new Shall Issue law to allow for 
concealed carry at special events 

Negative: 

*  No bad votes.  A mostly neutral item: as a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 
2000 Allen said he would vote to extend the "assault weapon" ban, but later 
changed his mind and supported letting the ban sunset. 

THE 7TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 

Just when I thought we were through with the 7th Congressional District, I've 
been forwarded an email from Marty Ryall, with Eric Cantor's' campaign, which is 
a total mischaracterization that needs a response.  The issue is that 
Congressman Cantor has refused to return his VCDL Federal Candidate Survey.  
(His opponent, Wayne Powell, returned his survey very pro-gun at the end of 
August.)  Cantor has been given the survey to answer at least three times, one 
of which has placed directly in his hands at his gun-free fund raiser in 
Richmond last month. 

Here is the email being sent by the Cantor campaign with my rebuttal: 

In regard to the VCDL, you should know the facts.  That organization continues 
to attack Congressman Cantor through phone calls, mail and e-mails, even 
distributing his home phone number in unfair attacks.  They cannot point to a 
single vote he has made in Congress that they take issue with.  [PVC:  VCDL has 
NEVER said Cantor had any bad gun voters WHILE IN CONGRESS, but that cannot be 
said while he was in the Virginia General Assembly.]  They are upset that he 
occasionally participates in events at venues where guns are not allowed.  
Congressman Cantor’s duties and obligations often take him to schools, 
government buildings and other venues where guns are not allowed.  [PVC:  VCDL 
has NEVER protested Cantor for doing his duties and obligations as a Congressman 
at places where guns are banned.  We have protested when he is campaigning and 
has control of the venue, yet chooses gun-free-killing-zones.]  That has 
absolutely no bearing on his strong pro-gun positions and record.  Until the 
VCDL demonstrates that they will treat Congressman Cantor fairly, he will not 
participate in their activities.  [PVC:  Not telling his constituents exactly 
where he stands on key gun-issues, especially those which he voted wrong on in 
the past, is VCDL's fault?  Sounds to me like the real issue is that he doesn't 
want uppity constituents asking him any serious questions.]  But rest assured, 
he will continue to defend theirs, and your rights of gun ownership.  [PVC:  
Except, perhaps, for some of the items on our survey that he doesn't want to 
talk about. Sadly, Cantor just doesn't get it - his problems with VCDL are all 
self-inflicted.] 

--- 

Congressman Cantor, treat your constituents fairly by just answering the VCDL 
survey.  It's not like we're asking for your first-born child. :-)  
Johnson's Responses: 

QUESTION:  "Should most adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun?" 	 

    "I'm an ardent supporter of the 2nd amendment and openly advocated conceal 
carry as Governor. It was a new concept at the time, but I believed it would 
result in less crime - a fact borne out by the statistics." 
    "Guns Must Never Be Up for Grabs," www.garyjohnson2012.com (accessed Oct. 
13, 2011) 

QUESTION: Are more federal regulations on guns and ammunition needed?" 	 

    "Now, the DOJ's [Department of Justice's] plan to address gun trafficking is 
to require law-abiding citizens in border states to be reported and entered into 
a federal database for buying perfectly legal rifles from licensed dealers. 
    Not only will this requirement do absolutely nothing to curb violence on 
either side of the border, it is yet another unacceptable infringement on 
fundamental 2nd Amendment rights. It is an outrage that this Administration is 
using border violence as an excuse to add the names of more law-abiding gun 
owners to their database. The President and his Attorney General need to get off 
the backs of American gun owners, and focus on policies that will actually work 
to stop border violence – without eroding basic constitutional rights." 
    "Governor Johnson Calls Department of Justice Reporting Requirement an 
Outrage," www.garyjohnson2012.com, July 13, 2011 

The Second Amendment: Individual or Collective Right?  "I don't believe there 
should be any restrictions when it comes to firearms. None." 
April 20, 2011, Slate Magazine 

"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. The first people who are going 
to be in line to turn in their guns are law-abiding citizens. Criminals are 
going to be left with guns. I believe that concealed carry is a way of reducing 
gun violence."   12 Nov, 2000, An Interview with Playboy magazine.
Published in: on November 3, 2012 at 7:20 pm  Leave a Comment  

A tale of two hardware chains

Or are they “home-improvement” chains.

Whatever.

On the one hand, Home Depot, whose customer service has become atrocious lately, has stood up for its beliefs.

The hate group “American Family Association” *  has been pressuring Home Depot not to speak out in favor of human rights.  Apparently, it’s okay to favor human rights; you just can’t say so and stay on AFA’s good side.

On the other hand, Lowe’s chose to pull its advertising from the TLC Show “All-American Muslim”.  All-American Muslim follows families in Dearborn, Michigan.  Yet the primary hate group opposing it is the Florida Family Association (*).  Lowe’s comment:  “We believe it is best to respectfully defer to communities, individuals and groups to discuss and consider such issues of importance.”   Apparently they’ll defer to communities far removed from the one portrayed.

I haven’t watched All-American Muslim.  It’s not in a time slot I pay a lot of attention to; I know a number of American Muslim families; and I’m not a big fan of TLC.   I  cannot comprehend, though, a company pulling advertising based on opposition from a hate group.  When verifying the information on the Florida group’s web page, I note they’re pissed that neither Hershey’s and Campbell’s Soup has bent.

Excuse me.  I’m off  to buy Hershey’s cocoa, Hershey’s chocolate, and a few dozen cans of Campbell’s soup.   Then I’ll stop at Home Depot for my DIY needs.

Let’s Be Offended

Can  you imagine anything quite as inane?  Well, okay, I read the news; I guess I can.

To be offended by an obvious play on words?

When a society loses its ability to see humor, it is well on the way to oblivion.

This from the “news” media.  The ones who shouldn’t be covering idiots’ “sensibilities” or frivolous suits.

Mrs. Brady? Mrs. Brady? Hello ……

Mrs. Brady?  Any comment?

Violence Policy Center?  Are you listening?

The gun votes were less surprising to many Democrats than were the Guantanamo developments. The NRA remains among the most powerful lobbies, and many lawmakers take care to stay off its political enemies list.

“People do not want to be on the wrong side of this particular cultural divide,” said Rep. David Price, D-N.C., who supports tougher gun controls. “It’s too bad there’s not a more responsible national organization” to counteract the NRA, he said.

There are no “responsible national organizations” that counteract the NRA.

Wanna know why?   Because the NRA, despite its shortcomings, speaks basically in favor of allowing law-abiding citizens to have their rights.

The same type of rights that journalists are permitted in writing as they please, because it’s guaranteed by the US Constitution.  Lesser rights, even, because “journalists” don’t have to go through background checks to buy pens, computers, or internet access.  Lesser, even, because “journalists” don’t have laws that make their statements crimes.  At most, they can open themselves to libel charges — civil libel charges.

Seldom, if ever, will you find an anti-gun organization that does not have to resort to miscalculation, twisted logic, or downright lies to make their points.  That’s what makes them irresponsible.

Published in: on May 25, 2009 at 9:11 am  Leave a Comment  

Candidates who have lost any hope of my support …

Ken Cuccinelli.  First, he’s been bugging me for two years; he can’t take “no” for an answer (i.e. I will not guarantee him my support yet); he claimed victory in debates, and then slammed his opponents for doing the same.  Hypocrite.  Plus, he’s anti-family and anti-choice.

Dave Foster.  I’ve spoken with Foster, and told him some of the things that are important to me.  Yesterday, I got a pre-recorded phone call that said his number one priority is getting Bolling and McDonnell elected.  So he’s putting politics over the job.  No thanks.

Bill Bolling.  I got the most hateful letter today, lambasting “liberal democrats” for being pro-abortion and pro-gay.  Good for them.   His letter includes these paragraphs…

I will continue my fight to stand up for your family by defending pro-life policies, fighting for traditional marriage and stopping leftwing (sic) extremists who want to take away your Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Our opponents will continue the Obama-Kaine legacy of high-taxes (sic), big government and fiscal mismanagement and turn our entire state government over to liberal Democrats and their pro-union, pro-abortion, anti-marriage, anti-gun owner (sic), anti-business friends. …

As I’ve mentioned before, pro-choice is NOT anti-abortion.  And anti-marriage?  I suspect he meant to say “pro gay marriage”.  He apparently doesn’t want gays to vote for him.  Pro-union I can agree on, partly, but only because unions as a rule went way beyond what they should have done — they went beyond “fair” to “greedy”.

Kris Amundson.  Not that she’ll be opposed, but once again she’s playing the “House Republicans obstruct my agenda” card, this time in her blog.  Note, no link, so no indication of which Democrats also agreed.  Not even a “x Republicans and x Democrats voted …”

Someday, perhaps one of these four will realize that you don’t always win voters by placing the party above all else.  I will not vote for you BECAUSE you’re a Republican, or BECAUSE you’re a Democrat.   I might support you in spite of party affiliation, but you have to earn it.

Our precious ‘right to bear arms’ too often comes with a high price: death : Opinion : Anderson Independent-Mail

From independentmail.com, of Anderson, SC (my sister’s home) comes this gem:

Our precious ‘right to bear arms’ too often comes with a high price: death : Opinion

Well, d’oh.  Doesn’t she realize that many of our freedoms come from death?  From those who are willing to lay down their own lives that others may have freedom?

That notwithstanding – simply a poor choice of headline, which the author may or may not have had a hand in crafting – the premise of the article is that our 2nd amendment rights are somehow worthy of abandoning become some don’t treat them with responsibility.

Just as some may abuse freedom of speech to bully, to espouse hatred, or to yell “fire” in a crowded theater, some abuse the right to bear arms.  If you look through the facts, though, you’ll find most of those who commit crimes are not so much abusing a right as they are breaking dozens of laws, and thus thumbing their nose at a right.

No, it is not the right to bear arms that causes death.  It is the utter disregard for the responsibility that comes with rights.  I for one will not confuse the two, and will fight for the rights and their incumbent responsibilities.

The Brady Bunch is at it …

The Brady Bunch was ticked they lost a bill today.

But they got someone to reintroduce it for tomorrow, and they think they can convince two senators who voted their way in 05  and ours in 09.

So they have this prewritten e-mail:

I urge you to vote for SB 1257 to close the gun show loophole. Unlicensed gun sellers should conduct background checks on gun purchasers just like the dealers at the table next to them do.  This loophole feeds the illegal gun market across Virginia and should be immediately and permanently closed. Your vote is critical to the bill’s passage.

(Their last paragraph was protected; it couldn’t be changed): Please vote for SB 1257 to close the gun show loophole. Your support in 2005 was greatly appreciated, and I hope you will again vote to keep Virginia’s communities safe from gun violence.

And I modified it:

Please vote NO on SB 1257!

Your vote today was appreciated.  You stood for our constitution, and not for making laws dependent on what building you happen to be standing in.

The Brady Campaign has sent the message that you can be “persuaded” to change your vote. Apparently, some of your constituents think you didn’t know what you were doing today.  They think they’ll get enough clicks to make the last paragraph of this meaningful.

How can you “close” something that doesn’t exist?

PLEASE VOTE NO ON SB 1257.

(Their last paragraph was protected; it couldn’t be changed): Please vote for SB 1257 to close the gun show loophole. Your support in 2005 was greatly appreciated, and I hope you will again vote to keep Virginia’s communities safe from gun violence.

My name and address was required to send the e-mail.   I’ll have to be on the lookout for their retribution.  But they cunningly spoke of “two senators” without naming them.  By modifying their e-mail, I got the message to those two without having to do the research.  I will do so later and post the names of those senators.

I urge others to go to the Brady web site and do the same.  It’ll push up their clicks, but they won’t be happy.

Hillary argues against First Amendment Rights

From today’s news: 

Hillary Clinton said Saturday that the remarks made Thursday on MSNBC about her daughter Chelsea being “pimped out” by the campaign were “incredibly offensive,” and she expects “appropriate action” taken.

Clinton reacted personally to the comments while campaigning in Maine, after correspondent David Shuster apologized twice Friday on air for making the comments.

“I am a mother first and a candidate second, and I found the remarks incredibly offensive,” Clinton said. “I can take whatever comes my way, that’s part of what I signed up for as a candidate, as an office holder. But I think that there’s been a troubling pattern of comments and behavior that has to be held accountable. So I have sent a letter to the head of NBC expressing the deep offense that I took and pointing out what has been a troubling pattern of demeaning treatment and I would expect appropriate action to be taken.”

Last I heard, the First Amendment guaranteed, among other things, people are free to say what they want.  Offensive speech may be rude, arrogant, even threatening (though this wasn’t) – but what is “appropriate” action?  Firing someone for saying what he thinks?

So, will she be a mother first and president second?  Would she spend four years taking umbrage at anyone who dared criticize a family member?  Where was she when the press was reporting every mis-step of the Bush twins (who, by the way, didn’t walk in to $250K jobs after college)?  What a hypocrite.

Truth maligned

A video recreated at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhEMIRbKQ4c  attempts to malign the individuals who observed the Lie-In at Richmond, VA’s capitol building last Monday.  Why would someone protest and then be upset that the spectators weren’t invited?

The video is recreated thanks to the fact the original poster didn’t open comments or ratings.  The re-posting allows both.

Compare to this one, with audio:  http://tinyurl.com/38uqc.

Others, also with full audio and not just the apparently extraneous laughter the original wanted highlighted is posted at: http://vaguninfo.com/videos/vcdl_meetings/2008/lobbyday.htm

Having seen all of these, I cannot imagine what frame of mind it would take someone to post that original.  If it weren’t for these others, you would not know that the great majority of those standing were objecting to the original protest.  You would believe the counter-protestors, for lack of a better word, were unruly, disrespectful, and vile.  Nothing could be further from the truth, as you’ll see in the other videos.

I long for true dialog.  For days when the Brady Bunch doesn’t have to spin its message because they can’t use logic.  For days when someone at MMM goes to a gun show, and then discusses the facts behind sales.  For days they don’t have to bolster their message with speakers whose message has nothing to do with a sale at a gun show.

I truly would like to discuss.  I tried last Monday, but the one woman who would speak to me mistook redundancy for persuasion, and when I still didn’t buy the line after about the tenth time she repeated it, she held up her hand and walked away.