When A Nutbag Wants To Shoot Up The Joint, Repealing The First And Second Amendments Won’t Help
It would appear that the nutbag who shot up a Colorado Springs abortion clinic and finally surrendered is hardly a poster boy for the anti-abortion movement. He’s just a plain old garden variety homicidal nutbag.
But it didn’t take long for the nutbag in the White House to make this about gun control and the nutbags at Planned Parenthood (and the media) to make this about what they called “rhetoric” aimed at their horrendous practice of selling the body parts of aborted dead babies which was exposed in some undercover videos.
CNN commentator Sally Kohn (who IS a poster girl for the pro baby death left) on Twitter blamed the “rhetoric” of the “anti-abortion right” for Friday’s murders. Kohn has previously blamed “white conservatives” for mass shootings. (She tweeted: Those who deliberately spread LIES about #PlannedParenthood profiting off fetal tissue DONATIONS have blood on hands)
As time goes on, there will be a move on the part of the baby killers and dismemberers who were caught red-handed on video, selling the organs of the babies they killed, to try and regain the moral high ground by somehow associating the pathetic excuse for a human being who shot up the clinic with the videos and the “rhetoric”.
It won’t work—except maybe at the New York Times.
It won’t work any better than calling FBI wiretaps on New Jersey mobsters in the DeCavalcante family violations of the mob’s constitutional rights.
The Colorado Springs shooter is, as was the shooter in the Charleston South Carolina church, a nutbag.
No amount of gun control or rhetoric control can stop people like this and if there is an answer I’m pretty sure that Barack Obama and Sally Kohn haven’t thought much about what it might be because they’re too busy calling for their pet political answers which make absolutely NO sense. Presumably, Obama wants us not to have guns. And Kohn wants us not to be able to catch people selling baby parts with undercover video. Because neither wants to stop the killing of babies and the trafficking in body parts of the dead babies.
Neither gun control nor the abridging free speech is going to happen. Ever.
Our forefathers wrote the right to bear arms into the bill of rights for a very good reason and that reason has not changed since 1789. Here’s a hint. It has nothing to do with duck hunting. It is best summed up in the immortal words of Suzanna Hupp to then Congressman Chuck Schumer at a Congressional hearing: “The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting, and I know I’m not going to make very many friends saying this, but it’s about our right, all of our right to be able to protect ourselves from all of you guys [politicians] up there.”
Nothing Barack Obama or his ilk does will ever change that.
As far as a free press goes, if you thought the New York Times was right in the Pentagon Papers case, you ought to love this case. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, you should read a little history—if your ideology doesn’t get in the way.
A free press and free speech means exactly that.
What’s making people of the left nervous is that the “press” is no longer just the New York Times or even Fox News Channel.
The “press” today can be anyone with a smart phone and a twitter account.
Nonetheless we still have the First Amendment which protects such “rhetoric” and the Second Amendment to protect the First one.
If you want to kill babies and sell the parts and tell everybody how right you are, do so if you can stay within the law.
But don’t blame guns and rhetoric for the actions of nutbags. And look in the mirror if you are looking for someone to blame.
Guest Opinion Fred Weinberg
It Takes a Tribe
Thirty-seven years ago, the federal government passed a law to keep Indian children safe. Today that promise, embodied in the Indian Child Welfare Act, is under assault.
America’s multibillion-dollar adoption industry and its allies seek to undermine ICWA’s enforcement by filing lawsuits they hope to take to the Supreme Court. If successful, the lawsuits would deny tribes of their right — and their duty — to look after the welfare of their children.
As Indian people, we’ve always known that it’s in our children’s best interests to stay in their families’ homes and to remain connected to their tribes. In 1978, Congress recognized this fact and passed ICWA, which aims to “protect the best interests of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families.”
Congress passed ICWA because such protections were desperately needed. In the 1970s, state officials would frequently tear Indian children from their homes for reasons of cultural chauvinism and ignorance. Then, children were served up to America’s adoption industry. ICWA hoped to stop this cultural genocide by creating a legal presumption that Indian children belong in their own homes or with other family or tribal members.
To guarantee this protection, ICWA gave tribes the ability to intervene in state courts on behalf of tribal children who had been removed from their homes.
Today, the ability of tribes to protect their children remains vital.
Consider the case of an adoption attorney in Oklahoma who was recently charged with 25 felony counts, including child trafficking. Sadly, those who make a living offering Indian children up for adoption often stoop to dubious tactics. Without ICWA, tribes would be helpless to protect those children.
Yet attacks on the law continue. Recently, the Goldwater Institute — claiming to speak for all Indian children in foster care or up for adoption — filed a lawsuit, hoping to have the Supreme Court declare ICWA un-constitutional.
This would strip Indian children of the law’s valuable protections. The Court would have to decide that it knows the best interests of tribal children better than their tribes do. This would be breathtakingly arrogant and ignore the repeated failures of the United States to protect tribal children.
For example, ICWA requires proper notice to parents and tribes of adoption proceedings. This helps ensure all adoptions are fair and transparent. Only those trying to force or illegally procure adoptions would be opposed to such minimum safeguards.
Casey Family Programs, the Child Welfare League of America and several other child welfare organizations, in response to Goldwater’s legal challenge, said ICWA “applies the gold standard for child welfare decisions for all children, and unraveling its protections could cause significant harm for Indian children.”
These organizations deal with both private adoptions and state foster-care cases. And they all agree that the “ICWA embodies the best practices in child welfare.” We’ve known this for years.
History shows that only Indian people can be counted on to protect their children. The adoption agencies seeking to overturn the ICWA claim that they know what is best for Indian children. But often, their interest lies in collecting adoptions fees quickly and with minimum fuss.
Tribal nations will defend the ICWA with everything they have. Fortunately, President Obama has been a staunch ally in honoring the federal government’s promise to uphold the ICWA. This country must not return to a time in which others decide what’s best for tribal children.
Guest Opinion Bill John Baker
Bill John Baker is the Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation.
