Not Exactly William Loeb III’s N.H. Union Leader Anymore

"I would rather have a competent extremist than an incompetent moderate." —Leon Jaworski

In life change is inevitable. Sometimes change is good. Other times, change is not so good. Then there are times where change is merely a change that we might individually do not care much for.

The New Hampshire Union Leader, once a reliably conservative publication established in 1863 out of the Frank Knox moderation strain, (moving decidedly right under the leadership of William Loeb III and Bernard J. McQuaid) is now part of a "new media era" sometimes showing Moderate tendencies. And if I am not accurate, we can just call it, "Anemically conservative," from time to time.

Despite Union Leader endorsement of Newt Gingrich in his run up to the New Hampshire primary, no other political or social issue "de jour" brings a sharper, more crystal clear focus to political dialogue than do guns or second amendment. So suffer me a moment to understand the larger context of the Union Leader as the Second Amendment chameleon today.

In The Union Leader's first Editorial on December 18th, following the Newtown Massacre, The NRA's clout: It comes from the people, The UL writes,

"Gun rights are not popular in America because the NRA is so politically influential. The NRA is politically influential because gun rights are popular..."

and,

"The group would have little clout if it did not have 4 million members and the support of millions of non-member gun owners who see a need to become politically active to protect their right to bear arms from liberals who openly advocate eroding it..."

The Union Leader does a fine job clarifying the lens through which to properly define the contemporary role of the NRA. As the UL points out, the left is hell-bent on vilifying, demagoguing and mischaracterizing the NRA, its members and its leadership. The anti-gun crowd has gone even so far as advocating the death of NRA leadership and its members.

On December 22, the UL Editorial staff came out strong with an editorial entitled, An individual right: Obama and the 2nd Amendment, questioning the strength of Obama's commitment to the Second Amendment, despite his rhetoric. Moreover, the UL underscored, "why" the second Amendment was came about in the first place:

Writing of militias in Federalist 29, Alexander Hamilton put it this way: "if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."

And finally on December 29th, An editorial entitled, "Holding steady: Gun rights after Newtown," the first suggestion emerges for advocacy of what is referred to as, "modest changes," citing a poll where 62% of Americans supposedly support a ban on ammunition magazines with capacities higher than 10 rounds and checks at gun shows.

In all respects, (notwithstanding a magazine or specific types of semi-automatic rifle) The Union Leader appears on its' face to have crafted a solid Second Amendment narrative.

What I find utterly troubling, however is the complete and utter checking of what I refer to as "Faux Second Amendment advocacy". On December 17, Professor Wayne Lesperance wrote in Another View citing some CNN/Washington Post/ABC polls,

But (Americans) also believe there are reasonable restrictions that can and should be implemented to restrict who can own a firearm, what sort of weapon they can own, and the amount of ammunition that can be loaded into the weapon.

December 27, again in, "Another View," David Sherman is the lone writer correctly pointing out that a culture of violence is at the heart of Mass murders, not the so-called, "black scary gun, with the misnomer attached, "assault weapon."

All the while, I am wondering, "Gee, I kind of wonder what Kathy Sullivan is going to write,"All the while fully knowing what is to come, prejudging the content and context. Not to disappoint, New Years Day brought us a rant from the reliably shrill Kathy Sullivan entitled, We need to take the guns away now!

Some people mistakenly think she irks me. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I often look forward to rebutting her arguments in blog posts with what I call, "The Shrill Kathy Chronicles" Its all part of the fun of having a sharp stick with which to poke people.

Occasionally, I send something to the UL as a counterpoint. But perhaps what I write is too sharp for them, even. No matter...I get it. The UL achieves a higher click count with Kathy Sullivan and her rants, as often evidenced by the rank number of trolls and Kool-Aid drinkers weighing in with comments. I would lay odds she finds the UL Editorials Irksome. It is all just good laughs.

David H. Lee weighs in on January 3 asserting, Dick Swett was right about the assault weapons ban. David H. Lee was a research guy for Dick Swett, ergo...an anti-gun Democrat. His rank pandering is noted here:

"Dick and others who voted for the ban "laid down their seats in Congress so that police officers and kids wouldn't have to lay down their lives under a hail of assault weapon attack."

Dick Swett fell on his sword, "for the children." And a heck of a lot of good that did, "for the children. What David Lee fails to disclose is that Dick paid the price for gong back on his word. Yet another in the sea of many who fails to conceptualize that criminals do not follow laws. Bans do not work.

Finally, on January 6, Ron Godbout from Northfield goes on a self-aggrandizing litany about the guns he owns, his competitive shooting experiences and his paper-thin sensitivity to Wayne LaPierre and the NRA. in a "Your Turn" UL Op-ed column. Godbout, "qualifies" himself in order to call for a ban on black scary guns..."Ban those guns, just not the ones 'I' own..." is the essence of his plea. He states,

"I concede that assault rifles have no functional role in the private sector, and I believe they should be well-regulated. Taxing them would be one partial solution, but placing stricter controls on them, like those already in place for fully automatic weapons, would help immeasurably."

Kevin D. Williamson, writing for National Review on Line, could not have said it more eloquently,

The answer to this question is straightforward: The purpose of having citizens armed with paramilitary weapons is to allow them to engage in paramilitary actions. The Second Amendment is not about Bambi and burglars — whatever a well-regulated militia is, it is not a hunting party or a sport-clays club. It is remarkable to me that any educated person — let alone a Harvard Law graduate — believes that the second item on the Bill of Rights is a constitutional guarantee of enjoying a recreational activity.

Ron Godbout drank too much of the anti-Second Amendment Kool-Aid. He let the emotional diatribes of the anti-gun left dumb him down. He is now a faux-Second Amendment supporter, advocating for the disarming of law-abiding citizens.

Sour grapes because the UL didn't publish what I had to say? Not a chance. It's nothing personal, I am sure. I still think Joe McQuaid and Drew Kline are, "stand-up guys." Besides, I got published on other local and regional publications, one as big, if not bigger than the UL. Inversely, what I wrote hardly fits within the moderate backdrop of what other citizens are saying.

On the one hand, it appears the UL has a solid and sound position on the second Amendment. But juxtaposed with the overwhelming opposite editorials calling for an assault weapons ban, perhaps things are now out of balance, if indeed, balance is being sought. Only the folks at the UL can speak to that.

Dear UK: Please Keep Your Wankers Over There

"We don't devote enough scientific research to finding a cure for jerks." —Bill Watterson

Piers Morgan does not like guns. That is okay with me. A great many people in this country do not like guns. Some people from here are particularly noisy about not liking guns. I suppose that is okay as well. What I take issue with are those instances where foreigners step upon our soil, and wag their finger at us, telling how we should not have guns. Piers Stefan O'Meara...Morgan is just one such scroat.

When a foreigner says, "you should not have guns," it is entirely fair game for us to look at his or her world view. And Piers Morgan comes from a societal and cultural norm where guns are banned and that society has nothing comparable to the Second Amendment of the United States.

In Piers Morgan's worldview guns do not belong in any society. Morgan uses his CNN bully pulpit to propagandize and to arrogantly lecture Americans on his Anglocentric gun paradigm... Well, I object.

First, Piers has a very short memory in World History. Over 200 years ago our ancestors drove Piers Morgan's ancestors off of this continent. Again in 1812, King George III and his British Empire decided to have another go at us...and failed. The Mighty Army of the British Empire...repelled by a band of ruffians (In today's vernacular would be bitter clingers to guns and religion) with guns. Still for many years thereafter, America had no standing Military.

The British Empire on the other hand, touts over 600 year experience with trained, organized standing Army in service to it's progressive imperial Kings and Queens. It was once said that the sun never sets on the British empire.

Alas, We can rightfully assume Piers Morgan is thoroughly familiar with the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. And why not? Although, "not from the states," the anti-gun liberals that Piers Morgan," sips tea and nibbles crumpets with, have likely educated him on their convoluted and utterly twisted contorted confabulation of what, the second amendment means. Bottom line: He knows how it reads.

And again, History is an inconvenient interloper in strident anti-gun dialogue. I say Again, The UK has nothing even remotely resembling the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In fact, The English history sets the standard for disarming it's subjects. It is historical experiences that provides the cultural context for why America has a "Second Amendment." Piers Morgan is devoid of that very experience.

The Catholic minority along with non-Protestants were prohibited from possessing arms in the ongoing campaign of general political oppression. The Act of Disenfranchisement was the standard of the day when the founding fathers were writing the U.S. Constitution. Certainly, that bore great consideration during the drafting by our founding fathers.

The Second Amendment embodies the very nature of the relationship between citizen and Government. Yet, many progressives turn their noses up and laugh at this as a relic of the 18th century. Progressives are not honest. Debates about the very meaning of the second amendment are a mere foil to the larger scheme of an unarmed America where criminals rule the day.

I have met many people, living here now who are from the UK and Piers Morgan clearly is an aberration. The Brits I know have purchased many guns, enjoy the fellowship, friendship and camaraderie of membership American sporting clubs offer. The have a crystal clear understanding of out Second amendment, find it novel and fascinating and they embrace it. To them, America is the standard-bearer for liberty.

Finally, Piers Morgan comes from across the pond with a questionable journalistic ethic. Where Lord Leveson chastised him for his clear knowledge of criminal behavior and was unembarrassed sufficiently to make jokes about it.

Like a churlish powdered up "rent boy" parading before the CNN cameras, Piers Morgan is an arrogant toerag who comes to America to impose his worldview on the viewing public with his finger-wagging and name-calling of our citizens. Not that its a huge deal, his ratings are abysmal..."The Big Bow Wow," got higher ratings than Morgan garners.

A petition was brought forth and garnered in excess of 100,000 signatures calling for his deportation. All is fair play: The UK won't allow some noted American Journalists there. Besides, We kicked the British Army to the curb twice, whats one more Nancy-boy?

Gun Control In Australia: Watch What Happens When Guns Are Banned

VOX HOPLOPHOBUS...

Of Hand Wringing Hoplophobes, and Hollow Points

"Freedom isn't for wimps." —Neal Boortz

On Sunday, January 6, The Nashua Telegraph featured a, Letter to the Editor from Andrew Mazer of Hollis. Ordinarily, letters like Mazer's are piss-poor subject matter for any edifying blog. But painfully, the nation is rife with Middle-aged sensitive new-aged progressive guys like Andy Mazer. We use to call them, "Whiners," or, "Wimps." Now they are called something else. Pick whatever "PC" label that doesn't piss anyone off. Just don't call them wimps because you will have to go to PC rehab.

Mazer takes issues with a statistic David Hunt uses in his December 20th LTE asserting "Gun Control Does not work." Using Wikipedia as a source Mazer states,

"A more meaningful metric would be to compare homicide rates in the United States to that of the United Kingdom. According to Wikipedia, in 2009, the U.S. had a firearm-related death rate of 10.2 as compared to 0.25 in the U.K. – a rate more than 40 times greater."

First, Wikipedia is not a valid source, Andy. (But seeing the reference kind of made me laugh, so Okay!) Citing a Wiki source is akin to reading Dr. Seuss and deciding that Green Eggs and Ham are not good for you.

This is where the real UK homicide numbers live. While the UK has considerably less gun crime, ( and, I wrote about why that is in earlier articles) but three times the violent crime as the U.S! Three times, Andy! Mazer shares that he wrote a letter to Senator Kelly Ayotte asking her to support a ban on "assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Ergo, the liberal-guy, "Hand-wringing."

"Restricting the availability of assault guns, hollow-point bullets and high-capacity magazines is the least we can do to protect schoolchildren – and, for that matter, ordinary citizens – from these all-too-frequent murderous rampages."

And there you have it: Hoplophobia. Guns and bullets and mags, Oh my! Ignorance is bliss. My guess is that Andy Mazer has had little or no experience with how guns, bullets or magazines operate. Andy Mazer is one in a sea of many, drinking the leftist Kool-Aid errantly thinking the guns are at the heart of the problem. Imagine their disappointment and dismay when they later find out that levels of violence does not change, even after they get their gun ban, if they get it.

Hollow-point Bullets? You want them banned? A hollow-point bullets are used to control penetration in an effort to keep over-penetration in check as not to inflict unintended damage to people nearby.

U.S. crime keeps going down unlike others places where Guns are banned and the crime rate is still at epic high levels. As American citizens buy more guns, society become a more tenuous place for n'er-do-wells and thugs.

Paul Ali Slater is a criminal who broke into a home where a mother and two children were doing nothing than what they usually do. Armed with a .38 caliber handgun she shot him in the face and neck five times. He now clings to life in a Hospital. The mother and children are okay.

It is fruitless telling these "vox hoplophobus" to dummy up on their facts. These martyrs of metrosexual, manicured "she-ish" men, have become comfortable in their skins drinking the Kool-aid Whine, and thinking big brother government will protect them from the bad elements life visits upon us.

An End To Presidential Term Limits?

"How come liberals never admit that they're liberal? They've now come up with a new word called 'progressive,' which I thought was an insurance company but apparently it's a label." —Marco Rubio

Obstinate continuance in a particular course of action despite ongoing and continued opposition encapsulates the very definition of Persistence. Such is the case of Representative Jose Enrique Serrano, a DemocRAT , representing New York's 15th South Bronx District.

As Fox News Reports, Serrano proposes the constitutional amendment ending presidential term limits. The resolution dates back 15 years Serrano bringing it forth with each foray into public life.

I would be remiss if I neglected to mention that Señor Serrano is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. H.J. Res. 17 now goes to the House Judiciary Committee for its, "licks."

It is probably a fair characterization that with the re-election of Barack Obama, the social-progressives (Marxists, Socialists, Liberals, Communit-wits...all feathers on the same bird) now feel emboldened, heartened even, to push through big chunks of their progressive, oppressive agenda.

Remember when people would point and laugh, calling us paranoid when we insisted this country is headed in the direction of being a Marxist Socialist state? Yeah, those were the good old days, now weren't they?