 | ||||
| Dr. David Marlett, Editor | 23 March 2001 | Vol. II #43 | ||
|
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Dr. David Marlett, Editor | 23 March 2001 | Vol. II #43 | ||
|
| ||||
| ||||
** For Immediate Release March 22, 2001
Today's shooting at Granite Hills High School in California -- just six miles from our most recent mass school shooting, and just three weeks later -- clearly illustrates the importanceof having armed and trained adults in our more violence-prone schools.
Our sympathies are with the parents and students, and our frustrations are with the government's so-called "Gun Free Schools" mandate.
According to Fox News, "No one was reported killed and the presence of an on-site officer could have saved lives."
How they come up with the phrase "could have" is a mystery considering the fact that the shooter was clearly intent on killing and had the firepower to carry out his desires. That cop saved lives, period. And he saved those children's lives with a gun.
Parents with children attending this high school should count their blessings that an armed, responsible adult was on campus. CNN tells us "deputies were at the school for an unrelated reason." Whatever that "unrelated reason" was, the presence of the gun in the hands of a responsible adult means there are no parents of El Cajon's high school grieving the death of a child today.
The recent Santana High School incident in nearby Santee was also stopped by an armed citizen, another peace officer who "happened to be there." Joel Myrick stopped a school shooter in Pearl, Mississippi with a gun he "illegally" had in his car at the time.
He had to violate a federal law to save children's lives, but do you think their parents minded his ignoring that law? Hardly.
Parents with children in area schools are understandably concerned about their children's safety. One of our members, Dennis Jackson, has daughters who attend schools in the area -- and friends at Granite Hills in El Cajon. Mr. Jackson telephoned us today and was quite frustrated over the fact that his children are sitting ducks.
"My daughter told me she's not going to school tomorrow," Dennis Jackson spoke painfully through the phone line. "She doesn't feel safe. Am I supposed to order her to go back to the potential 'fish in a barrel' situation now created by this so-called 'Gun Free School Zone?' When a government requires children to go to their indoctrination centers but refuses to protect them from the criminal element, how are parents supposed to feel? Why won't they allow well-trained teachers to protect my children as has been done to stop school shootings in Israel?"
KeepAndBearArms.com's Founder and Exec. Director, Angel Shamaya, issued the following official statement today, saying: "I believe the following fairly represents the majority of our members' views and those of a growing number of parents throughout our nation":
"El Cajon's Granite Hills High School has approximately 2,900 students. Presumably, the majority of their parents love them. We call on those parents -- and all parents with children in 'criminal safety school zones' -- to demand armed protection for their children. Whether it be law enforcement officers or trained principals and/or teachers, we must all face the fact that nothing but a well-aimed gun is going to stop a deranged lunatic who is aggressively trying to kill our children."
KeepAndBearArms.com's President, Harley "Gunnie" Reagan, Ph.D., D.D. also issued a statement today, as follows:
"Once again, we see a senseless shooting by a deranged individual who held the gun laws in the state of California in total disregard. It is shown beyond a reasonable doubt to anyone except the most irrational of minds that we must now try it our way if we are to save children's lives. Don't we hear the anti-rights people saying, 'if it only saves one life' in their push for gun control? We are saying, 'Give it a chance. Try it our way.' Let's use the example of Israel and Switzerland by making certain we have trained and armed personnel -- whether they be security officers or teachers -- to decrease the number of injured or lost lives in America's schools. Guns in the hands of good people do save lives, period -- and today's incident proved it."
[ http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com ]
By David Keene
The recent rhetorical antics of the White House and its critics over the question of whether the economy is or is not in recession came to an end last week as Democrats began blaming President George W. Bush for the downturn. That it began before the man took office hardly matters as more and more Americans begin to believe that the good times are coming to an end.
What does matter is fixing blame and positioning oneself and one's party to take credit for the recovery when it appears. Bush's problem is that presidents are generally assigned ownership of recessions that take place on their watch regardless of where or how they began. They always try, correctly or incorrectly, to place the blame elsewhere, but in the real world they have to accept the blame and deal with it.
The good news from Bush's perspective may be that the same factors that weakened his predecessor's ability to claim credit for the boom times that are quickly receding into the mists may ameliorate the blame assigned him for the bad times that seem to be coming around the corner. The American people no longer believe as they did not many decades ago that government creates their jobs, runs the economy and is responsible for every blip in the Dow. Indeed, to a greater extent than at any time in the last 75 years, they seem to share Ronald Reagan's view that the most important thing government can do to foster prosperity is get out of the way.
If this view survives the crumbling of the new economy, it will make Bush's task somewhat easier both because he won't have to shoulder all the blame for what's going on and because his administration is likely to advance "solutions" to the problem consistent with it.
Which, of course, brings us to the Bush tax cut. It is a tribute to George W. Bush that he is fighting to enact the proposal he made during his campaign for the White House. Too few elected officials even remember what they said during their campaigns. That he not only remembers, but is doggedly fighting to deliver on the promises that got him to where he is today is admirable.
The problem is that his tax program was put together before the economy began to slip. As a result, it wasn't designed as a stimulus package. Instead, it was constructed to pass muster in a skeptical Congress and was both smaller and less stimulative than it might have been had it been put together last week rather than last year.
It represented a good start and won conservative support both because it demonstrated that George W. Bush is a Reaganite tax-cutter at heart and because most felt it could either be grown in Congress or that additional cuts could be enacted down the road. On its face, however, it was both smaller and less potentially stimulative in the short run than either the Kennedy or Reagan rate cuts.
The problem is that if the Bush package as presently designed is enacted, his victory could prove Pyrrhic rather than real. This is because it provides little in the way of meaningful relief in the short run and isn't likely to do much to jump-start a sputtering economy. To do that, the White House should increase the rate cut and have it kick in retroactively while throwing support behind proposals to significantly slash or eliminate the capital gains tax.
Otherwise, the Democrats will be able to continue to play the class warfare game more effectively while giving Bush clear title to the recession. They will be able to say, on the one hand, that they let Bush do what he wanted, but that it didn't work. Then, they'll be able to ask working Americans if they have seen any real results of the Bush tax cut in their take-home pay. Most won't have, of course, because much of the benefit won't appear for several years.
If the tax cut doesn't do much for the economy and isn't showing up in the form of more take-home pay, they'll suggest, it must have gone precisely where they predicted it would go - to the rich.
Now it is possible that this scenario won't develop. Those economists who are even today suggesting that the economy will right itself quickly could be right. If they are, Bush will have little to worry about.
If they're wrong though, he'd be well-advised to accept the suggestions now coming from some Democrats as well as a lot of Republicans that his rate cuts be front-loaded and increased. If he does this and moves quickly he can fulfill his campaign pledge and take title not to a recession, but to an economic recovery.
[ David Keene, ACU ]
"President Bush's very modest tax cut proposal is being debated with all the passion that raged over the Emancipation Proclamation, and for the same reason. At stake is the question whether some men have the right to live at the expense of others. Today the taxing power, rather than chattel slavery, is the instrument by which the parasitical element of the population subsists. And that element, which includes politicians, panics at the slightest reduction in the state's power to plunder. Once you start liberating taxpayers, even a little tiny bit, nobody knows where it may end." --Joseph Sobran
"The National Education Association recognizes that the complex and diverse needs of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and questioning students; and gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender families and their children require the development of programs that promote a safe and inclusive environment."
TCN Comment: Are your kids in state schools?
If you taught your child the same things using the same methods that the state school systems do, you would appropriately go to jail for child abuse.
Q: When are the parents going to stand up and say enough is enough? When are communities going to set the standards for their schools and put the NEA in its place?
A: They won't. As long as the baby sitter is working, she'll get paid. Most parents really don't care enough about their children to even send an e-mail of complaint, let alone stand up in a school board meeting and be heard.
Daschle-Gephardt, et al., are still flapping about, declaring that George Bush and Dick Cheney have used their brief tenure in the White House to talk the equity markets and economy into a recession. As we noted last week, Gephardt complained, "[This] started when Dick Cheney, a few months back, said we're in a recession." Of course, the charges are ludicrous, but, for the record, we came across this comment from Dick Gephardt in a January 3rd interview: "Look [the tax cut] may [have] to get bigger because the recession is looming and we've got economic worries out there." That's right -- Gephardt was using the "R" word weeks before Mr. Bush took office.
[ The Federalist ]
Washington Democrat Sen. Patty Murray has angered some of her colleagues by disclosing a list of five Democratic senators her Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee believes are "most vulnerable." Those making the list: Tim Johnson (S.D.), Max Cleland (Ga.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Mary Landrieu (La.), and Paul Wellstone (Minn.). "We know they're in trouble, it's just not the kind of thing you want to dwell on so early in the campaign," says a DSCC source. "It just gives the Republicans more ammunition back in the home states."
Of greatest concern are Johnson and Landrieu, who represent states Bush won handily. But all five are expected to face tough Republican challenges. "Cleland might get a break if Bob Barr decides to run and wins the Republican nomination," says the DSCC source. "We think we'd have a better chance against him." Another GOP possibility in Georgia is Rep. Saxby Chambliss. Picking up several of these Democratic seats is vital to any Republican hopes of holding on to a Senate majority in 2002, and the Bush White House has indicated it wants a role in helping recruit prospective candidates for many of the seats. "That may influence who runs. Bush really wants to campaign for these people, so he wants people he has comfort level with," says the DSCC source."
[ Washington Prowler ]
Influential conservative reverend Jerry Falwell said this week that he hopes President Bush doesn't mean it when he tells Americans "it's time to move on" from investigations of possible crimes committed by Bill and Hillary Clinton.
"You know, I don't believe in moving on," Falwell told Judicial Watch General Counsel Larry Klayman on Saturday's "Judicial Watch Report" radio show.
"I hope that this is only rhetoric with him," he added.
Falwell noted that all of ex-President Clinton's last-minute pardons are now under investigation.
"I did notice the other day that the attorney general, John Ashcroft - who would not have acted without Bush's blessing - instructed the New York U.S. attorney to look into all 177 pardons," he told Klayman. "So I have to believe that before the camera [Bush] is saying, 'I'm not vindictive, I'm not going to hurt Mr. Clinton.' But behind closed doors he's telling John Ashcroft to get the sucker."
Falwell said he thought ex-first lady Hillary Clinton was a prime mover behind much of the corruption that permeated the White House during her husband's tenure.
"You know, Hillary - it's amazing to me, she not only knew about all these things, Bill Clinton didn't really have the time to do all those mean things because he would have interrupted his love affairs," Falwell said. "I think that it was Hillary all the way. I think that she's the mean-spirited one. She's the ideologue, she's the flaming left-wing socialist liberal. She's a bad person with a criminal mind."
The former Moral Majority chief said it was his personal belief that Mrs. Clinton will stay married to her husband only as long as the relationship furthers her own political ambitions.
"But if he continues to be an albatross around her neck, he'll be gone. He'll be gone."
[ NewsMax ]
The Executive Branch pulled the plug on the American Bar Association this week. The ABA's 15-member Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has, for almost 50 years, vetted candidates for the nation's highest courts. President Bush has, wisely, decommissioned the ABA's role in selecting judges. In a letter to ABA President Martha Barnett, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales concluded, "It would be particularly inappropriate, in our view, to grant a preferential, quasi-official role to a group, such as the ABA, that takes public positions on divisive political, legal and social issues that come before the courts."
The American Civil Liberties Union and the American Library Association (the ALA is the "NEA" of government school librarians) filed a lawsuit in federal court questioning the constitutionality of the Children's Internet Protection Act, which requires libraries funded by our tax dollars to install software that blocks Internet access to pornography. "This is a federal mandate which is holding the poorest libraries hostage," said ALA director Emily Sheketoff. "It's saying the libraries that...are the poorest and serve the poorest, must filter. Therefore, those people who have no access to other information, who depend on the public library, are getting less information than those localities that are rich enough to say they don't need the federal funding."
Nothing like invoking the old "class warfare" argument for equal porn access! This brainchild must have come from the ALA's Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered Round Table!
[ The Federalist ]
Rev. Eugene Rivers, a black urban pastor and close friend of OFCBI director John DiIulio, elevated Dilulio's attack on evangelical Christians last week, saying, "The white fundamentalists thought the faith-based office would finance their sectarian programs, which primarily serve upper middle class suburbanites, and they are infuriated because John DiIulio wants resources to go to people who are poor, black and brown."
TCN Comment: The White Fundamentalist View
Actually none of the white fundamentalists that I know have ever had any plans to apply for federal funds. They all know that what the feds fund, they run and having no plans to give their ministries to the government have not even considered W's money as an option.
For the most part fundamentalists see their primary ministry as preaching the gospel, the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the only means of atonement for fallen man. Feeding the poor and drug rehab programs are seen by fundamentalists as means to gain access to those who need the message of redemption, not as the primary goal. The people can still be accessed in other ways, so these programs are not absolutely necessary.
The liberal denominations that years ago went off to a social gospel, like W's United Methodists, see the social programs as the primary goal. They have lost the concept of "fallen man" condemned by his sin to an endless punishment in a lake of fire as taught in the Scriptures. To them all men are headed on different paths to the same God and just need the path made a little more comfortable. They have no real purpose other than the redistribution of wealth, so they see W's big money plan as a way to fund their ministries without following the Biblical guidelines of tithes and offerings.
We must remember that W is a liberal United Methodist. His concept of Christianity is a social gospel. It has nothing to do with the Biblically based fundamental view. His "Faith Based Initiatives" is nothing more than an extension of W's view.
With this in mind, is "FBI" the establishment of a state religion, or just a tool to buy "poor black and brown" votes?
"In Irvington, N.J., two eight-year-olds have been charged with 'making terrorist threats.' The boys were 'playing cops and robbers with a paper gun,' the Associated Press reports. 'Authorities said that 8-year-old Hamadi Alston stood up at his desk at Augusta Street School last Thursday, pointed paper folded to look like a gun at his classmates and said, 'I'm going to kill you all.' '
The AP adds that 'Police Chief Steven Palamara . . .defended school officials and the district's zero-tolerance policy.' You may laugh, but paper guns are particularly dangerous. Because they're made of paper, a miscreant can slip them right past metal detectors. The citizens of Irvington are lucky to have Chief Palamara on the job. He and his force are such excellent crime-fighters that there hasn't been a single homicide with a paper gun in all of Irvington so far in 2001. How many other cities can boast such a record?"
[ Best of the Web ]
" American viewers prefer sex, greed and crime stories. Watching the news is no fun ever since George W. Bush restored honor and dignity to the White House."
[ Hamilton ]
The homepage and archives for The Conservative Newsletter are located on the WWW at http://www.wilderness-cry.net/tcn/
This newsletter is sent by subscription only. If you do not wish to be on the mailing list, please let us know and you will be removed immediately. To be removed from this mailing list, simply reply to this newsletter with the word REMOVE in the body of your reply. You may also send your request to tcn@wilderness-cry.net .
Thank you.