Titled: It's the Demography, Stupid

Another excellent column by Mark Steyn on the impact of falling Westen birth rates and the impact this will have on the western way of life. Some quotes:

Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries...

If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes. A commenter on Tim Blair's Web site in Australia summed it up in a note-perfect parody of a Guardian headline: "Muslim Community Leaders Warn of Backlash from Tomorrow Morning's Terrorist Attack." Those community leaders have the measure of us.

That's the wonderful thing about multiculturalism: You can choose which side of the war you want to fight on. When the draft card arrives, just tick "home team" or "enemy," according to taste.

In National Review recently, I took issue with that line Gerald Ford always uses to ingratiate himself with conservative audiences: "A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have." Actually, you run into trouble long before that point: A government big enough to give you everything you want still isn't big enough to get you to give anything back. That's what the French and German political classes are discovering.

In the 2004 election, John Kerry won the 16 with the lowest birthrates; George W. Bush took 25 of the 26 states with the highest. By 2050, there will be 100 million fewer Europeans, 100 million more Americans--and mostly red-state Americans.

Well worth the time to read.

 

Titled: When Being Pro-America Makes You Anti-Democrat!

Every now and then you come across a well-reasoned and well-crafted piece that just seems to fit the way you think. You read through it, nodding as you go, excitedly waiting for the conclusion and for the words to sink in. Then, having digested the message, you sit back and a profound sense of sadness comes over you. Why didn't I write that? It says what I think. It captures how I feel right now. But then I realize that I don't need to write it. All I need to do is find it, and help it find its way to a larger audience, to ensure that it isn't lost among the flotsam of the blog world.

Here is an excerpt:

Free unfettered self-determination, through personal (including economic) liberty, a free market capitalist economy, freedom OF religion, freedom OF speech, freedom OF thought and expression, the right to fail or succeed at one’s own hand, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the right to one’s own earnings, the right to a safe secure nation, to raise our children as we see fit and the right to self-governance accordingly, these are the fundamental principles America was founded and built upon.

 

The simple fact is, most Americans are not anti-religion or religious speech, not anti-capitalism or free market society, not anti-military or national security, not federal dependents and not interested in relying upon any commune to raise their young or determine their place or worth in society. Today, this also means that they are not Democrats…

 

Though Democrats bristle at any suggestion that they are in any way anti-American, the fact is, their agenda is at odds with nearly every American principle today and average people able to see that, just can’t get over it, no matter how bad the alternatives might appear.

 

Read the rest here, then come back and leave a comment or two.

 

Titled: Twisting saga of one man's motorbike (minor registration required)

In this cautionary tale, the theft of a motorcycle and an offer to help the police apprehend the thief leads to disaster. This is a classic case of a citizen trying to help, only to get ensnared in the clutches of bureaucratic red tape. Again, we see how the unintended consequences of policy meant to help has led to disaster for Joe Public, involving ever-increasing fees, the police, the court system and city hall. So far, the only winner seems to be the towing company although the final verdict is still to come in.

 

Titled: AG Sprays Machine Gun Opinion (registration required)

Anyone who lawfully — key word being lawfully — owned a federally registered machine gun on or before May 19, 1986, can keep the gun and transfer it if the transfer is approved by the U.S. Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Attorney General Mike COX issued his opinion about the possession and transfer of federally registered machine guns in response to a request Rep. Leon DROLET (R-Clinton Twp.).

Mike SESSA Jr., who lives in Harrison Township and has worked with Drolet since the early 1990s to advocate for Second Amendment rights, sent the request to Drolet.

There was some confusion as to whether a license was needed to obtain the gun. The question was whether the document that has to be filled out in order to get a license is actually considered a "license." According to the Cox opinion, the document is enough to qualify as a license because it follows all federal guidelines.

Anyone who doesn't meet the requirements and fill out the documents but possesses a machine gun can go to jail under state and federal law.

So now you know

 

Titled: Lansing prepares for stand your ground' bill - Part 1

After the law (concealed carry) was passed, many people had concerns of out-of-control violent crime, and western style gunfights in the streets.

That didn't happen, and, according to the 2003 Michigan Uniform Crime Report, Michigan experienced a 10 percent drop in violent crime between 1999 - a year before the CCW law was passed - and 2003.

For now, an individual can still be held responsible for taking a life, no matter what pretenses surround the death. The people who received a CPL know this and have serious concerns about the price that they would pay if forced to defend themselves or their family.

"I could be perfectly justified in what I've done," said Rick Hansen, co-owner of Silver Bullet Firearms, located at 5121 S. Division Ave. "And Kent County could burn me on a criminal trial which could cost as much as $50,000 in lawyer fees, even if I'm not convicted."

"Then a year and half down the road, say a relative comes up to me Are you Rick Hansen?' And because some kid strung out on drugs came into my home, and I defended myself, I could be sued in a civil trial, which could cost another $50,000," Hansen said.

A bill introduced to the State House Judiciary Committee, HB 5143, would exonerate an individual from criminal and civil charges if a shooting meets the bill's definition of self-defense.

Titled: Lansing prepares for stand your ground' bill - Part 2

Because violent crime rates continue to decrease in Michigan, coinciding with the CCW law passed in 2000, it is hard for the pro-gun community to understand the concerns gun-control advocates still harbor.

Lt. Ralph Mason, public information officer for the Grand Rapids Police Department, hasn't seen any of his initial concerns about the CCW law come to fruition.

"We really haven't had the problems that some people thought we would. I'm still not in favor of it. But I personally thought we would have a significant problem," Mason said.

A decrease in violent crime doesn't mean people are ready to loosen gun laws, according to Shikha Hamilton, state president of the Michigan Million Mom March, a chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

"Unless gun bills relate to hunting, generally the general public doesn't support it. We don't take an anti-gun stance. This is just an unreasonable bill," Hamilton said.

"That is the biggest challenge working in Michigan," Hamilton said. "When you have the legislature falling in line with the gun lobby and not representing their constituents."

A bill introduced to the State House Judiciary Committee, HB 5143, would exonerate an individual from criminal and civil charges if a shooting meets the bill's definition of self-defense.

 

Just in case you missed the latest occurence of government intrusion into the lives of everyday folk, Kipper at xrlq.com has a round up of California's new laws that came into effect this week.

Highlights include the perforation of minors and pre-movie safety demonstrations.

AP carries a more complete list, sans the witty remarks
 

Most of you are aware of the BBC, the British Broadcasting Corporation. Something you may not be aware of is its policy of "impartiality" in reporting. By this I mean that both sides of an argument are given equal weighting, despite any moral or ethical imbalance implicit in the first place. With asymetrical warfare, such as terrorists against the US forces, this results in news articles that refuse to acknowledge right and wrong, all in the name of good journalism.

Take, for example, today's report: Two killed as Israel strikes car.

At first glance, this sounds like Israel has just murdered two random, innocent people on their way to a community picnic. It is not until the ninth paragraph that we are informed that the occupants were a local commander of the Islamic Jihad organization, and his lieutenant, both dressed in military fatigues.

I am not trying to address the rights and wrongs of the israeli / arab conflict here, just illustrating the way the BBC has of  distorting the coverage through editorial policy.

 

Titled: Martin backs effort to keep gun-crime suspects in jail; race tightens

Martin agreed to support "reverse onus" bail conditions, which would require those accused of gun crimes to demonstrate why they should be released. The promise was part of a pledge during a Saturday phone call to Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and Toronto Mayor David Miller, who have vowed to end the gun violence that most recently claimed the life of a 15-year-old Toronto girl...

...Reid acknowledged that the reverse onus provision will require justification under the Charter of Rights, but the Liberals believe the courts will recognize that "the importance of protecting citizens against gun violence is paramount."

Canada seems bent on blaming the US for their current violence, rather than addressing their own drug and gang problems. Now, in addition to calling on a handgun ban, they plan to detain suspects until they can prove they are not a threat to society. This obviously runs afoul of the current habeas corpus provisions contained in the Canadian Charter. Yet the Liberals believe this is justified for the good of the people. While being tough on criminals is a standard plank of libertarian policy, this seems to be so far off base to be crazy. Does this really carry such an appeal to the Canadian electorate to help them win?

Dave the hyphenated American

 

Titled: Chicago court rejects suit against General Motors for not sponsoring Christian group

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago has upheld a verdict in favor of General Motors, after a born-again Christian employee sued the automaker for religious discrimination. The case stemmed from 43-year-old computer engineer John Moranski, who petitioned GM to form a company-sponsored Christian group.

Moranski's attorney argued that the manufacturer sponsors 'affinity groups' for minorities including women, gay men and women, veterans, disabled people, and racial and ethnic groups, and the manufacturer's refusal to create a similar group for Christians violated their client's civil rights.

The automaker has a blanket policy to refuse sponsorship to any groups centering on religious or political grounds. In a nine-page ruling, the court found no merit in Moranski's arguments tying his claim to the 1964 Civil Rights Act's Title VII provision (prohibiting discrimination based upon color, race. religion, sex, or national origin).

I always find the balance between a public corporation's rights to enforce its own policy and the individual right to fair and equal treatment tricky to find in certain circumstances. When religion is then mixed in another layer of complexity and passion is added.
GM has a right to sponsor whatever groups it wants, not being funded with public money or part of the government. Moranski held the view that the guidelines allow GM to treat religious groups less favorably than nonreligious groups. GM argued that it treats all religious groups the same, a view upheld by the court.

Opinions anyone?

Dave the hyphenated American

 

Guest Blogger Writes!