The Democratic Party has become the Lawyers’ Party.
Barack Obama is a lawyer.
Michelle Obama is a lawyer.
Hillary Clinton is a lawyer.
Bill Clinton is a lawyer.
John Edwards is a lawyer.
Elizabeth Edwards is a lawyer.
Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate).
Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school.
Look at leaders of the Democrat Party in Congress: Harry Reid is a lawyer. Nancy Pelosi is a lawyer.
The Republican Party is different.
President Bush is a businessman.
Vice President Cheney is a businessman.
The leaders of the Republican Revolution:
Newt Gingrich was a history professor.
Tom Delay was an exterminator.
Dick Armey was an economist.
House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer.
The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon.
Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer?
Gerald Ford, who left office 31 years ago and who barely won the Republican nomination as a sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in 1976.
The Republican Party is made up of real people doing real work, who are often the targets of lawyers.
The Democrat Party is made up of lawyers. Democrats mock and scorn men who create wealth, like Bush and Cheney, or who heal the sick, like Frist, or who immerse themselves in history, like Gingrich.
The Lawyers’ Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the enemies of America. And, so we have seen the procession of official enemies, in the eyes of the Lawyers’ Party, grow.
Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail? Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large retail businesses, bankers, and anyone producing anything of value in our nation.
This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the eyes of lawyers. Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing their clients, in this case the American people. Lawyers seek to have new laws passed, they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate courts to overturn precedent, and lawyers always parse language to favor their side.
Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine. But it is an awful way to govern a great nation. When politicians as lawyers begin to view some Americans as clients and other Americans as opposing parties, then the role of the legal system in our life becomes all-consuming.
Some Americans become “adverse parties” of our very government. We are not all litigants in some vast social class-action suit. We are citizens of a republic that promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from courts, and from lawyers.
Today, we are drowning in laws; we are contorted by judicial decisions; we are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once private lives.
America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked.
When the most important decision for our next president is whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court, the role of lawyers and the law in America is too big.
When lawyers use criminal prosecution as a continuation of politics by other means, as happened in the lynching of Scooter Libby and Tom Delay, then the power of lawyers in America is too great.
When House Democrats sue America in order to hamstring our efforts to learn what our enemies are planning to do to us, then the role of litigation in America has become crushing.
We cannot expect the Lawyers’ Party to provide real change, real reform or real hope in America Most Americans know that a republic in which every major government action must be blessed by nine unelected judges is not what Washington intended in 1789.
Most Americans grasp that we cannot fight a war when ACLU lawsuits snap at the heels of our defenders. Most Americans intuit that more lawyers and judges will not restore declining moral values or spark the spirit of enterprise in our economy.
Perhaps Americans will understand that change cannot be brought to our nation by those lawyers who already largely dictate American society and business.
Perhaps Americans will see that hope does not come from the mouths of lawyers but from personal dreams nourished by hard work.
Perhaps Americans will embrace the truth that more lawyers with more power will only make our problems worse.
The United States has 5% of the world’s population and 66% of the world’s lawyers!
Tort (Legal) reform legislation has been introduced in congress several times in the last several years to limit punitive damages in ridiculous lawsuits such as “spilling hot coffee on yourself and suing the establishment that sold it to you” and also to limit punitive damages in huge medical malpractice lawsuits. This legislation has continually been blocked from even being voted on by the Democrat Party.
When you see that 97% of the political contributions from the American Trial Lawyers Association goes to the Democrat Party, then you realize who is responsible for our medical and product costs being so high!
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Why I cannot vote Democratic, and why I joined the Tea Party
Freedomworks.org Friday, December 17, 2010
Tea Party Stops $1.3 Trillion Pork Bill
Yesterday, on the 237th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, pressure from grassroots activists forced Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to withdraw his pork-laden Omnibus spending bill from further consideration. Not only was the bill chock-full of earmarks, but it also sought to provide funding to key provisions of Obama's health care law. Its defeat was an early holiday gift and a story Hollywood couldn't have scripted any better.
When the Sons of Liberty stormed Boston Harbor that 16th day of December in 1773, they set in motion a chain of events that eventually led to the American Revolution. This year, the Tea Party movement proved that there has been a seismic shift in the politics of spending.
This victory wouldn't have been possible, of course, without the tireless efforts of activists like you, who helped usher in November's congressional landslide. Your desire to fulfill the timeless vision of the Boston Tea Party continues to sustain and grow this decentralized, grassroots movement.
Federal Judge: Obamacare Is Unconstitutional
U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson struck down the individual mandate of Obama's health care law on Monday, finding the measure which requires citizens to purchase health care by 2014 to be unconstitutional. This is a big early victory in a long fight which will now move to federal appeals court and will likely be finally decided by the Supreme Court.
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who spoke at FreedomWorks' 9/12 Taxpayer March on Washington, has been instrumental in the fight against Obamacare.
"I am gratified we prevailed," Cuccinelli told CNN. "This won't be the final round, as this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, but today is a critical milestone in the protection of the Constitution."
Already, support for Cuccinelli has been voiced by thousands on our FreedomWorks Facebook page. Please become a fan of FreedomWorks on Facebook to "like", "comment" and "share" our stories. Don't forget to click the suggest friends link to invite your friends to join our page. This is critical in helping us spread the word about lower taxes, less government and more freedom.
Tea Party Stops $1.3 Trillion Pork Bill
Yesterday, on the 237th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, pressure from grassroots activists forced Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to withdraw his pork-laden Omnibus spending bill from further consideration. Not only was the bill chock-full of earmarks, but it also sought to provide funding to key provisions of Obama's health care law. Its defeat was an early holiday gift and a story Hollywood couldn't have scripted any better.
When the Sons of Liberty stormed Boston Harbor that 16th day of December in 1773, they set in motion a chain of events that eventually led to the American Revolution. This year, the Tea Party movement proved that there has been a seismic shift in the politics of spending.
This victory wouldn't have been possible, of course, without the tireless efforts of activists like you, who helped usher in November's congressional landslide. Your desire to fulfill the timeless vision of the Boston Tea Party continues to sustain and grow this decentralized, grassroots movement.
Federal Judge: Obamacare Is Unconstitutional
U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson struck down the individual mandate of Obama's health care law on Monday, finding the measure which requires citizens to purchase health care by 2014 to be unconstitutional. This is a big early victory in a long fight which will now move to federal appeals court and will likely be finally decided by the Supreme Court.
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who spoke at FreedomWorks' 9/12 Taxpayer March on Washington, has been instrumental in the fight against Obamacare.
"I am gratified we prevailed," Cuccinelli told CNN. "This won't be the final round, as this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, but today is a critical milestone in the protection of the Constitution."
Already, support for Cuccinelli has been voiced by thousands on our FreedomWorks Facebook page. Please become a fan of FreedomWorks on Facebook to "like", "comment" and "share" our stories. Don't forget to click the suggest friends link to invite your friends to join our page. This is critical in helping us spread the word about lower taxes, less government and more freedom.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
A government of the people, by the people, and for the people
There are members of Congress who need to understand about the will of the people. The people of this great country want to remain in a free and democratic society, and to maintain the Constitution that has succeeded in guiding us for more than two hundred years.
Our forefathers had the wisdom and courage to establish this new country in a way that allowed for peaceful transition of leadership based on the judgment of the electorate and the electoral college. That leadership involves primarily two of the three branches of our government: the Executive and the Legislative. When either of these branches does not act in the best interest of the people of this country, the people need to speak out and demand that we are being served in our best interests and not for the convenience of the elected.
This administration and several of the those elected to Congress appear not to be sensitive to the will of the people. It is not a contest of which party is right, but what best serves the people. Each issue needs to be dealt with in a manner which answers the question without regard to the party: "What is in the best interest of the people that we serve?"
Every social system has it's benefits and it's flaws: Ours being that members of our government are elected, and in order to stay in office, they must be reelected. But at the same time they must be loyal to their party. That often results in a conflict of interest. In addition, there is pressure from lobbyists and the corruption of bills by earmarks which have no relation to the bill, but add additional costs. Talk of bipartisanship is often hollow, and unbridled power can lead to corruption.
The current administration needs to heed the will of the people. We need a smaller, more efficient government with greater fiscal responsibility. More government control is expensive and is contradictory to our democracy. The elected need to remember the words of Abraham Lincoln at the close of the Gettysburg Address: "... a government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish for the earth."
Our forefathers had the wisdom and courage to establish this new country in a way that allowed for peaceful transition of leadership based on the judgment of the electorate and the electoral college. That leadership involves primarily two of the three branches of our government: the Executive and the Legislative. When either of these branches does not act in the best interest of the people of this country, the people need to speak out and demand that we are being served in our best interests and not for the convenience of the elected.
This administration and several of the those elected to Congress appear not to be sensitive to the will of the people. It is not a contest of which party is right, but what best serves the people. Each issue needs to be dealt with in a manner which answers the question without regard to the party: "What is in the best interest of the people that we serve?"
Every social system has it's benefits and it's flaws: Ours being that members of our government are elected, and in order to stay in office, they must be reelected. But at the same time they must be loyal to their party. That often results in a conflict of interest. In addition, there is pressure from lobbyists and the corruption of bills by earmarks which have no relation to the bill, but add additional costs. Talk of bipartisanship is often hollow, and unbridled power can lead to corruption.
The current administration needs to heed the will of the people. We need a smaller, more efficient government with greater fiscal responsibility. More government control is expensive and is contradictory to our democracy. The elected need to remember the words of Abraham Lincoln at the close of the Gettysburg Address: "... a government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish for the earth."
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Republicans In Name Only
Now that the House of Representatives has a narrow conservative majority, we need to ensure that remaining RINO's (Republicans In Name Only) like Rep. Fred Upton (Michigan 6th District) do not sabotage the conservative agenda. Rep. Upton's voting record indicates that he often favors the progressive policies.
Rep. Upton aspires to the chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee which has major influence on a broad swath of domestic policy issues. However, he has voted against tax cuts and for Pelosi's Omnibus Spending Bill. He voted against federal deficit reduction and for increased welfare. He voted for bailouts and increased government regulation; against offshore drilling and for increased taxes on domestic energy companies. Those policies are indicative of a legislator who is not in touch with what the country wants.
Many people, including myself, feel that he should not become chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee since he is far out of step with the Tea Party values, the GOP, and America as a whole.
Rep. Upton aspires to the chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee which has major influence on a broad swath of domestic policy issues. However, he has voted against tax cuts and for Pelosi's Omnibus Spending Bill. He voted against federal deficit reduction and for increased welfare. He voted for bailouts and increased government regulation; against offshore drilling and for increased taxes on domestic energy companies. Those policies are indicative of a legislator who is not in touch with what the country wants.
Many people, including myself, feel that he should not become chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee since he is far out of step with the Tea Party values, the GOP, and America as a whole.
Friday, October 29, 2010
The Game of Politics
Politics is like a game of cards, but much simpler. The rules are:
1. Get yourself known to the public so that your name would be recognized on the ballot. It doesn't make a difference how this is accomplished, but it helps if it not due to any type of lewd or criminal behavior - although this would not necessarily exclude your candidacy. Make sure that you get the favor of the political leadership of the party you favor since you have virtually no chance without it, and even less a chance if it is not a major party.
2. Acquire a lot of money by promising favors and buying loyalty from those who hope to gain favor in your purview of administration. If you have the favor of the party, they will help you get the money for your campaign. Otherwise, no chance.
3. Dig up as much dirt on your opponent(s) as possible. It is not a requirement that the issues be true, only that those issues would be difficult to disprove - at least until the election is over. Generalities regarding the opponent's party is always fair game.
4. Buy as much media time as you can afford (it's campaign money anyway), and slander your opponent just shy of legal trouble. Avoid making promises except in generalities as this may backfire on you. Make sure you are well dressed and looking good as this is what the public wants. What you say is of little importance.
5. If elected, you are home free to do what you want. Fiscal management is not your responsibility because it can always be blamed on someone else. Enjoy the perks and use whatever you can to your advantage. You need something, get it and put it on the government tab. You now have power and, if handled shrewdly, a somewhat unlimited source of money.
This type of campaigning has been true ever since there have been candidates vying for the same position. It was true in our government since it's inception in the late 18th century. Although, the above rules are somewhat sarcastic, they are not far from the truth. Are we naive enough to believe that every politician has our best interest in mind? I believe that even the most altruistic fall by the wayside when they realize that the only way to keep their position is to "follow the party line" regardless of what is best for the people. Choosing "the least offensive candidate" is NOT a reasonable choice. Apparently, neither is qualification.
What the people of this great country want is relative peace and prosperity. Neither word should be taken in the absolute, but rather as a state of being free of tyranny and having unjust limits placed on our freedoms. Prosperity does not imply wealth (which is an arbitrary term anyway); prosperity is the freedom to obtain a satisfying livelihood through one's own abilities. As such, it is not, nor should it ever be, the purview of ANY governmental body to limit that personal responsibility.
Governments are responsible to ensure the safety of their constituents, but not to ensure everyone's welfare. The exception would be for the assistance of those persons who are unable to maintain a viable standard of life. When government expands its purview into the private sector, or overrides it's constitutional authority, it is wrong. In a democracy, government should not dictate how people must live. That is socialism. The more control government has, the less the people have to decide what is best for their lives. That is not democracy.
1. Get yourself known to the public so that your name would be recognized on the ballot. It doesn't make a difference how this is accomplished, but it helps if it not due to any type of lewd or criminal behavior - although this would not necessarily exclude your candidacy. Make sure that you get the favor of the political leadership of the party you favor since you have virtually no chance without it, and even less a chance if it is not a major party.
2. Acquire a lot of money by promising favors and buying loyalty from those who hope to gain favor in your purview of administration. If you have the favor of the party, they will help you get the money for your campaign. Otherwise, no chance.
3. Dig up as much dirt on your opponent(s) as possible. It is not a requirement that the issues be true, only that those issues would be difficult to disprove - at least until the election is over. Generalities regarding the opponent's party is always fair game.
4. Buy as much media time as you can afford (it's campaign money anyway), and slander your opponent just shy of legal trouble. Avoid making promises except in generalities as this may backfire on you. Make sure you are well dressed and looking good as this is what the public wants. What you say is of little importance.
5. If elected, you are home free to do what you want. Fiscal management is not your responsibility because it can always be blamed on someone else. Enjoy the perks and use whatever you can to your advantage. You need something, get it and put it on the government tab. You now have power and, if handled shrewdly, a somewhat unlimited source of money.
This type of campaigning has been true ever since there have been candidates vying for the same position. It was true in our government since it's inception in the late 18th century. Although, the above rules are somewhat sarcastic, they are not far from the truth. Are we naive enough to believe that every politician has our best interest in mind? I believe that even the most altruistic fall by the wayside when they realize that the only way to keep their position is to "follow the party line" regardless of what is best for the people. Choosing "the least offensive candidate" is NOT a reasonable choice. Apparently, neither is qualification.
What the people of this great country want is relative peace and prosperity. Neither word should be taken in the absolute, but rather as a state of being free of tyranny and having unjust limits placed on our freedoms. Prosperity does not imply wealth (which is an arbitrary term anyway); prosperity is the freedom to obtain a satisfying livelihood through one's own abilities. As such, it is not, nor should it ever be, the purview of ANY governmental body to limit that personal responsibility.
Governments are responsible to ensure the safety of their constituents, but not to ensure everyone's welfare. The exception would be for the assistance of those persons who are unable to maintain a viable standard of life. When government expands its purview into the private sector, or overrides it's constitutional authority, it is wrong. In a democracy, government should not dictate how people must live. That is socialism. The more control government has, the less the people have to decide what is best for their lives. That is not democracy.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Life on other planets
Any person who is minimally aware of astronomy realizes that the Earth is one of several planets within our solar system, of which the sun is a minor star of billions of others within a spiral arm of our galaxy. This galaxy is one of countless other galaxies within the viewable universe as we know it. As our technology increases, we realize that there are other planets around other stars, and speculation is that some may have life, and a few of these life forms may be intelligent. OF COURSE! Why are we so naive to believe that this minor speck in the universe is the only possible "intelligent" life?
We are not the oldest solar system - even within our own galaxy. There are life forms which have probably been around eons before us and their technology would be far beyond our own. If we had the advanced technology for interstellar travel, we would undoubtedly be studying other life forms that we would encounter in our region of stars. Even with our current technology, which is crude at best, we are beginning to realize that there is the possibility of other life forms out in space.
To realize the complexity of life forms, we merely need to look at our own planet. There are life forms that look different from us and each other based on the adaptation to their environment. Creatures that crawl, swim, fly, or even live anchored to the ground. Many shapes and sizes from microscopic to enormous; many adaptations to food sources, some symbiotic, others predatory, but all surviving in their adapted niche. Why would that only be true on planet Earth?
Since life adapts to it's environment, we should expect that the life that exists on other planets would evolve based on various critical factors. Gravity would determine whether the creatures would be thin and tall or short and stocky, the amount of light would affect the size of their eyes (probably at least two for binocular vision) and sensitivity to the spectrum to which they are used to. Thin air would require large lungs if air breathing (dependent on the gases in the atmosphere). All sorts of adaptations are possible as we see on earth. Their skin would also be determined by factors such as radiation, etc. The end result is that we should not expect that they are even carbon based or water dependent as we are. In fact, they do not need to resemble us in any way.
For many years we have been sending radio and TV signals which radiate into space. Unfortunately, most of it is inane indicating to other intelligent life that we are primitive. Assuming that many UFO sightings are in fact ET in origin, who can blame them for being curious to study our primitive, and warring, societies without making direct contact. Our first reaction would be to try to kill or capture one for study. Fortunately, they apparently do not want the same from us.
As I said earlier, we are a primitive world, and we have barely begun to understand who, and what, we are. After all it has been perhaps 100,000 years since our prototypes crawled on this earth, and merely 100 or so years since science began to scratch the surface of technology. That is an extremely minor blip in the estimated thirteen billion years that the universe has been around.
We are not the oldest solar system - even within our own galaxy. There are life forms which have probably been around eons before us and their technology would be far beyond our own. If we had the advanced technology for interstellar travel, we would undoubtedly be studying other life forms that we would encounter in our region of stars. Even with our current technology, which is crude at best, we are beginning to realize that there is the possibility of other life forms out in space.
To realize the complexity of life forms, we merely need to look at our own planet. There are life forms that look different from us and each other based on the adaptation to their environment. Creatures that crawl, swim, fly, or even live anchored to the ground. Many shapes and sizes from microscopic to enormous; many adaptations to food sources, some symbiotic, others predatory, but all surviving in their adapted niche. Why would that only be true on planet Earth?
Since life adapts to it's environment, we should expect that the life that exists on other planets would evolve based on various critical factors. Gravity would determine whether the creatures would be thin and tall or short and stocky, the amount of light would affect the size of their eyes (probably at least two for binocular vision) and sensitivity to the spectrum to which they are used to. Thin air would require large lungs if air breathing (dependent on the gases in the atmosphere). All sorts of adaptations are possible as we see on earth. Their skin would also be determined by factors such as radiation, etc. The end result is that we should not expect that they are even carbon based or water dependent as we are. In fact, they do not need to resemble us in any way.
For many years we have been sending radio and TV signals which radiate into space. Unfortunately, most of it is inane indicating to other intelligent life that we are primitive. Assuming that many UFO sightings are in fact ET in origin, who can blame them for being curious to study our primitive, and warring, societies without making direct contact. Our first reaction would be to try to kill or capture one for study. Fortunately, they apparently do not want the same from us.
As I said earlier, we are a primitive world, and we have barely begun to understand who, and what, we are. After all it has been perhaps 100,000 years since our prototypes crawled on this earth, and merely 100 or so years since science began to scratch the surface of technology. That is an extremely minor blip in the estimated thirteen billion years that the universe has been around.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Government in America
Today I attended my first meeting of the local Tea Party group named West Suburban Patriots. I went with an open mind to see what they had to say without any preconceived ideas other than knowing that they were dissatisfied with the direction of our government. I must admit that I shared that feeling of discontent for some time, that is to say through several cycles of Presidents and Congress, regardless of political affiliation.
I found that the speakers at the meeting were not fanatics, but rather that they were very concerned and aware citizens. The speakers, and the 40 or so attendees, honestly felt that bigger government is not the answer to the problems in this country, but, in fact, serve to exacerbate issues which could be resolved in a simpler and far less costly manner.
The function of the Tea Party is neither to support nor to wrest control from either the Democrats or Republicans. It serves to bring awareness to the people that our government is bloated and excessive in it's use of power and spending.
Many of the principles of the Tea Party are founded upon the ideas of Thomas Jefferson who, although he was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence and the third President of the United States, was vigilant regarding the possibility of corruption of power by government. He even warned that "... All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
We cannot choose to remain silent while our government takes control over our inalienable rights as citizens, regardless of the motivation or intent. Telling us that government should control health care is a dangerous precedent. It not only takes away our freedom to choose and control our own destiny, it mandates that we do what the government deems best for us. That to me smacks of socialism, and that is not what the founders of this country intended, nor is it what the citizens of this country desire for our future.
I found that the speakers at the meeting were not fanatics, but rather that they were very concerned and aware citizens. The speakers, and the 40 or so attendees, honestly felt that bigger government is not the answer to the problems in this country, but, in fact, serve to exacerbate issues which could be resolved in a simpler and far less costly manner.
The function of the Tea Party is neither to support nor to wrest control from either the Democrats or Republicans. It serves to bring awareness to the people that our government is bloated and excessive in it's use of power and spending.
Many of the principles of the Tea Party are founded upon the ideas of Thomas Jefferson who, although he was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence and the third President of the United States, was vigilant regarding the possibility of corruption of power by government. He even warned that "... All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
We cannot choose to remain silent while our government takes control over our inalienable rights as citizens, regardless of the motivation or intent. Telling us that government should control health care is a dangerous precedent. It not only takes away our freedom to choose and control our own destiny, it mandates that we do what the government deems best for us. That to me smacks of socialism, and that is not what the founders of this country intended, nor is it what the citizens of this country desire for our future.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
The Greater Wasteland
I am tired of the blather in all forms of media – especially the Internet – where accusations and just plain BS are put out daily. Thanks to our Constitution we are allowed free speech which is vital to a free society. But, as with any right, it is subject to misuse by those who have an agenda which is contrary to the truth.
No President or Congress has ever gotten it right all of the time. The same applies to anyone or any group who has policy making authority. To slander and accuse for the purpose of destroying the credibility of that authority is just plain wrong! Misinformation, either due to intent or ignorance, is dangerous. There are so many in our society that do not take the time or effort to check out sources, and in many cases that information is difficult or nearly impossible to disprove.
Our government was divided into the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial in order to provide for checks and balances. This was to ensure that each branch is disallowed total power. When one branch seems to get it wrong, it is not a conspiracy, but a case of many disagreeing with the decision. If the majority of the populace disagrees with the performance of our government, then it is our responsibility as voters to fix it by electing competent persons to replace those who do not uphold our values.
When Newton Minow was chairman of the FCC, he said in a speech to the National Association of Broadcasters on May 9, 1961 that television was a “vast wasteland” based on inane programming. That is still true today, but the Internet is even a greater wasteland of stupidity and ignorance.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Gangs ... not guns!
In the city of Chicago, there are multiple murders almost every night. Many of those killed or maimed are children and young adults. Based on the locations within Chicago and ethnicity of the murders, it is very likely attributed to gangs and gang wars. Mayor Daley and the Chicago politicians have chosen to ignore the gang crime and instead concentrate on a gun ban. The problem is not the guns, Mayor, it is the gangs! Whether or not the possession of a gun is legal or not is of no consequence to the gang members. Legislating gun ownership only affects the citizen who wants to protect him/herself and their family.
Then there is the issue of the legal system in Chicago, or the lack thereof. When a person has a criminal background especially when violent or reckless behavior is a pattern, they should be doing jail time and not walking out of court with a mild reprimand. The recent cop killer had shown repetitive criminal behavior and yet was allowed to walk the streets looking for another victim.
Mayor Daley, stop hassling the general public who want to defend themselves, and take decisive action against the gangs before more innocent children have to die.
Then there is the issue of the legal system in Chicago, or the lack thereof. When a person has a criminal background especially when violent or reckless behavior is a pattern, they should be doing jail time and not walking out of court with a mild reprimand. The recent cop killer had shown repetitive criminal behavior and yet was allowed to walk the streets looking for another victim.
Mayor Daley, stop hassling the general public who want to defend themselves, and take decisive action against the gangs before more innocent children have to die.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)