Is This The Price of Freedom?

Reaction to the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut has run the full spectrum. Some of it predictable (e.g. the usual rhetoric from both sides of the gun control debate). Some of it just downright insensitive and idiotic (e.g. Governor Huckabee suggesting that God allows the murder of children because of the Supreme Court decision ending school prayer). Some of it paranoid (e.g. suggestions that it was a conspiracy so that the United Nations can take guns away).
But one reaction stood out. During a local report about the tragedy, a man being interviewed said that "unfortunately, it was the price of freedom". The indiscriminate killing of 20 kids ages 6 and 7 is the price of freedom in our country? Their little bodies riddled with bullets is the price of freedom?

Generally, when people talk about the price of freedom it is in connection with the death of soldiers. Adults who volunteered to serve in the military. Not children going to school. Or teachers. Or school principals. Or everyday citizens going about their lives.

And what freedom is worth such a sacrifice? The freedom of mentally ill individuals to fulfill their psychotic fantasies? The freedom of irresponsible parents making weapons capable of killing 20 defenseless kids available to their mentally unstable child? The freedom to be able to discharge high capacity magazines at any moment for whatever reason? Again, what freedom is worth such a sacrifice?

The argument that more regulation will not prevent similar tragedies is more palatable than the idea that we should just accept more Newtowns. After 9/11, we did not - as a country - accept terrorism because "it was the price of freedom". Quite the contrary.

After Newtown, we can longer accept throwing our hands up when it comes to gun violence in our country. We can no longer accept thoughtless statements or cliche phrases.

Stating that people, and not guns, kill completely ignores the fact that the type of weapon used is directly related to the amount of carnage that can be perpetrated. On the same day of the Newtown tragedy, a man in China stabbed 22 children at a primary school. They all survived their injuries.

Had the killer been able to only discharge two or six bullets at a time instead of a hundred bullets in a matter of two minutes, there would have been more opportunity for someone to overcome him. For the children to run away. The type of weapon used DOES impact the ability to kill. Time to recognize it.

To say that "criminals will always get guns" ignores the fact that we are not dealing with common criminals that want to rob or drug dealers fighting over turf. If Nancy Lanza could not buy her personal arsenal legally, it is very likely that no guns would have been available to her son. What can be legally purchased will make a difference in situations like Newtown.

We also cannot allow the fringe to dominate the conversation. The Supreme Court has found that the right to bear arms is a civil right. Any calls for total gun bans are non starters. Privacy laws cannot be so rigid that they shield individuals like the Virginia Tech killer. We should be able to secure persons that pose a threat to society before they do any harm.

False accusations of shredding the Bill of Rights or unfounded fears about tyranny being around the corner should not be indulged. Let's acknowledge that we secure our free nation through the rule of law, our military, our political system and not through private citizens with delusions of being the founding fathers shooting rounds of ammunition on weekends.

What specific measures we need to undertake in order to prevent more tragedies is unclear at this time. What is clear is that the price of freedom cannot be another Newtown.

By : Thinking Politics Forum

My Thoughts On The GOP Convention

Image by Win McNamee / Getty Images

In business Mitt Romney has a reputation for competence. His calling card is being able to assemble to best team to tackle problems, perform tasks. Apparently, the tasks do not include selecting a team to produce a successful convention.

I really can't remember a more ineffective GOP convention than the one that ended last night. Overall, the convention came off as repetitive ("You Built That"), defensive (constantly asserting that the GOP values women) and moments that were just downright bizarre (Clint Eastwood).

Since the nominee of the party is decided long before the primary season is over, conventions in the modern era are nothing more than a chance for the party to come together and send off their nominee into the general election. With that purpose in mind, the focus of conventions should be about building up the nominee, take the opposition down and making the case for why the party's candidate is the best man or woman (yes, I keep hoping a woman will be nominated) to be president.

For the most part, the speakers at the convention seemed more interested in promoting themselves than Mitt Romney. That was certainly true of Chris Christie who spent the majority of the time bragging about his accomplishments in New Jersey. Only towards the end of his speech he threw in a couple of unconvincing lines about supporting Romney because he will make America better.

Very different from previous key note speeches like that of Zell Miller that shred John Kerry over military spending and delivered the memorable line about our soldiers fighting with "spitballs". Or Joe Lieberman who made a solid case for the McCain-Palin ticket and gently pointed out that the then Senator Obama had potential but wasn't ready to lead.

Despite Ann Romney's declarations of love for that boy she met at a high school dance, she was not particularly effective in humanizing Mitt. It wasn't until Thursday night and the speech by Pam Finlayson that a picture of a caring Romney came through. And Mitt helped himself a great deal talking about his parents and his kids.

Overall the staging was not very well executed. Something was happening with the teleprompter that made virtually every speaker come off as hesitant and robotic. Even Newt Gingrich! Having Romney glad hand his way to the podium just slowed down the momentum built up by Marco Rubio's superb speech. And the decision to have Clint Eastwood speak to an empty chair was truly a man made disaster.

It will be interesting to see the polling in the next few days. This morning the Romney-Ryan ticket boarded the "Believe In America" plane and they are off to the general election. The Democrats are up next. Not sure what their theme will be. But I am sure no one will be talking to an empty chair.
MORE

Just Because You Declare Victory, It Doesn't Mean You Won

Just Because You Declare Victory, It Doesn't Mean You Won She is a piece of work. Jan Brewer, that is. On Monday, the Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of Arizona's immigration law was released. Brewer immediately claimed victory even though the bill was basically gutted. I suspect that Brewer would have declared victory even if the Court had struck down all the provisions. She seems impervious to facts. Remember the headless bodies? And the non-existent increase in crime? So what exactly happened? Four provisions of Arizona's SB1070 were challenged by the Obama administration. Specifically: Section 3 which made it failure to comply with federal alien registration requirements a state misdemeanor was declared unconstitutional by a vote of 6-2. Section 5 making it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to seek or engage in work in the State was declared unconstitutional by a vote of 5-3. Section 6 authorizing officers to arrest without a warrant a person any person that the police has probable cause to believe he or she has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States was declared unconstitutional by a vote 5-3. Finally, Section 2(B) was unanimously upheld. It provides that officers who conduct a stop, detention, or arrest must in some circumstances make efforts to verify the person’s immigration status with the Federal Government. However, the Court said "This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect." Remember the objective of SB1070 was to achieve "attrition through enforcement." In other words, make life so miserable that people will self-deport. Ironically, the only provision upheld might end up making the life miserable for police officers as they try to enforce it without triggering civil rights lawsuits. During oral arguments Chief Justice Roberts said, "It seems to me that the federal government just doesn't want to know who is here illegally or not". Supporters of the Arizona law viewed Roberts' statement as indication that their cause was right. At the time, I wrote: Let's say Chief Justice Roberts is absolutely correct. The federal government made a conscious decision to be lax in its enforcement of immigration law; does this mean that states have a constitutional right to take up the slack? I am not aware of any section of the Constitution granting said right to the states. Apparently, the Court also could not find such a section in the Constitution. One the arguments used to justify the constitutionality of the law was that Arizona was simply "cooperating" with the federal government. Justice Kennedy wrote: There may be some ambiguity as to what constitutes cooperation under the federal law; but no coherent understanding of the term would incorporate the unilateral decision of state officers to arrest an alien for being removable absent any request, approval, or other instruction from the Federal Government. In other words, no state has the constitutional right to interfere with immigration without the consent of the federal government. As it should be. We cannot have 50 different approaches to immigration. It will lead to chaos. Brewer can claim victory all she wants. The section of the law that was upheld was not a key provision. Checking the immigration status of someone who has been stopped or arrested on matters unrelated to immigration is nothing new. Moreover, the Court has made it clear that it will revisit said provision if implementation leads to long delays in releasing or detaining individuals. Make no mistake about it. What happened on Monday was a complete and utter repudiation of Kris Kobach's legal theory on immigration. And any conservative, Republican that says otherwise is not helping the conservative movement or the Republican Party.

A Legal Immigrant Speaks Out

Few issues stir people's emotions like illegal immigration. The emotions were in full display this past week as people reacted to the Obama administration's decision to grant deferred action to certain DREAMERS.

As I was reading people's reactions on my Facebook newsfeed, I came across this question: "Why would anyone bother to follow immigration laws?"

Well, I cannot speak for all legal immigrants. But I can certainly speak for myself. The reason I followed the law is simple: peace of mind. Yes, I did it for myself... call me silly but the idea of having to worry about being picked up by immigration officers at any moment just didn't appeal to me.

No patriotic act on my part. I just do not want to deal with hassles. Incidentally, this is the same reason I file my taxes on time... pay my bills... and so on. I just want piece of mind. I am selfish that way.

Besides, legal entry has its own perks. For example, not having to walk days across the desert risking your life. Much better to come through a point of entry and have a customs agent welcome you to the United States with a friendly smile.

Often, people tell me that they are surprised that I do not buy into the whole "I came here the right way, why don't they" line of thinking that is very common among legal immigrants.

I did it "the right way" because I could. My family had the resources to send me here to study. So what exactly is the point of comparing my situation with someone who has no legal avenue available to come to this country? That is like patting yourself on the back for buying something you really want and can afford while disaparaging others who can't do the same.

Better yet, what is the purpose of looking back and saying "well my ancestors came here legally, why can't they do the same"? I remember Rick Santorum talking about his Italian immigrant grandfather's hands. He said, "They were enormous hands. And all I could think was those hands dug freedom for me."

Very moving words. But his grandfather's hands, feet, whole body would have not been able to enter the United States under current immigration laws. A least not legally. And that is case for the overwhelming majority of ancestors who "did it the right way". Again, what is the point?

Becoming fluent in English was another selfish act on my part. I wanted to be able to take advantage of every opportunity that this great country has to offer. And that can be done only if you learn English. Moreover, knowing English in addition to one's native lanuage is an advantage worldwide.

I honestly do not understand why people get so emotional about this issue. I do not understand why so much time is wasted making apples and oranges comparisons. Time that could be invested in crafting a pragmatic solution to the problem of illegal immigration.

Above all, I do not understand why allowing to stay individuals who are here illegally through no fault of their own upsets so many people. Especially if they have demonstrated a willingness and ability to contribute making this country even greater. We should be deporting Zetas. Not valedictorians.