THE NRA’S INCONSISTENT MESSAGE

Sometimes the best friends of the liberty movement are its worst enemies. This problem is created by organizations and people who are single-issue oriented. Quite often they call for the sacrifice of rights in order to strengthen the rights that they deem most important. This was made evident again over the past 2 weeks during which the protectors of the Second Amendment – the National Rifle Association (NRA) – have offered solutions to the issues that led to the Newtown massacre. Among their cures is the deployment of armed guards on school campuses.  

Putting armed guards on school grounds does not offer a direct threat to the rights of the individual. It does, though, offer a secondary effect in that it indoctrinates Americans to an ever-present police state.

As it stands now, seemingly-intelligent adults have been conditioned to sacrifice liberty (and the Fourth Amendment) for alleged safety at the airports; for that, Americans willingly subject themselves to sexual assault at the hands of TSA agents. Now, think of how their children will be conditioned to seeing that in their travels and the armed government agents roaming the halls of their schools and how they will come to accept as the norm such constant, overreaching babysitting by Big Brother. As they age, thanks to such ubiquitous exposure to the police state in their formative years, they will come to accept – even desire -- the anticipated expansion of Homeland Security as it brings TSA agents to bus depots, football stadiums, shopping malls, parks, and other public places. They will also accept without question the ever-growing network of surveillance that saturates our biggest cities and smallest towns. They will never know – or expect - anything different.      

While the attack on the individual is subtle, the NRA’s plan is a more direct assault on the Tenth Amendment and states’ rights. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mandate the federal policing of local municipalities and public places. That power is left to the states. The NRA, on the other hand, sees it the other way. Their Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said as much in his December 21 comments to the media: “With all the foreign aid, with all the money in the federal budget, we can't afford to put a police officer in every school?” and “I call on Congress today to act immediately, to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every school”.

Doing so would set an ugly precedent by denying the rights of local governments – and therefore the people -  to maintain and oversee their own police and security forces. Local control of police is one of the most important pieces of the liberty puzzle – the moment that the people lose that and the federal government gains control of the protection of our city streets and school hallways, is the moment that we lose everything. Unlike other countries where the police forces are managed by the national government, our police are accountable to the very people they are empowered to serve and protect. Under federal funding – therefore federal control -  police forces would end up reporting to a higher, distant power less in tune with the needs of the residents and more intent on the maintenance of power than the maintenance of freedom.

So, it’s ironic that the NRA claims to fully support the Second Amendment, which was listed in our Bill of Rights by the Founding Fathers to not only offer a means of achieving self-defense and sustenance, but also as a means to offer protection from the evils of totalitarianism, whether that threat came from another country or our own country itself. The NRA’s hopes for federally-funded armed security opens the door to the very type of federal government that our Founding Fathers wanted protection from.

Because of circumstances like this, the liberty movement would be better served if single-topic groups like the NRA focused solely on their task at hand and their specialty niche – in this case, maintaining and/or reclaiming our right to self-defense – and didn’t delve into other areas and ideas that only serve to harm other rights. If the whole of the Constitution is important to groups like the NRA, they should leave certain matters to individuals and organizations that have a broader and more consistent approach to Americanism.



Gasport resident Bob Confer also writes for the New American at TheNewAmerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @bobconfer


This column originally appeared in the 31 December 2012 Lockport Union Sun & Journal

GUN OWNERS: DON'T BE STUPID

It’s obvious to even the most pedestrian of political observers that 2013 and the years to follow will be fraught with lengthy debates over gun rights, from state houses to Washington DC. Such is to be expected when a classroom of innocent youth are executed by an unhinged, evil soul flaunting an assault rifle. 

That debate really began the day of the shooting, playing itself out in volume at workplace water coolers, family dinner tables, and on broadcast news and talk shows. Unlike past events, everyone had an opinion – there wasn’t a person who didn’t – because of the pure horror of what happened in Newtown and the belief, no matter how remote, that their children could be gunned down at anytime.

As with past debates, this one showed extreme views from both sides. Both sides have their loons. Thing is, this time around, the loons on my side (staunchly pro-Second Amendment) are the loudest. Thanks to the wonders of social media, the most insane theories, arguments, and counterclaims made their way around the world and were spouted and re-spouted ad naseum. Facebook and Twitter – and ultimately real-life conversation – became saddled with ideas that leave me shaking my head and saying to myself, “there go our rights,” because it’s obvious not very many people have the ability to intellectually defend our natural right to self-defense.

Through their foolishness, they are digging a grave for legal gun ownership. 

Case in point: The theory posed that had one of the teachers or principal been carrying a gun, the massacre would never have happened. Let’s look at that in a logical fashion, distancing ourselves from the emotion of Newtown. Handgun owners (some 6 million strong) represent a minority of gun owners, who in themselves represent a minority of Americans (44 million out of 312 million). That’s 1.9% of the population. Now, let’s assume that percentage is duplicated amongst the ranks of teachers (which is highly unlikely due to their predominantly-liberal worldviews). That would mean that there are 137,000 teachers with pistol permits. Most pistol permit owners rarely carry their weapon into public and people working in an environment full of children and teens would be less likely to carry. So, let’s suppose that only 2% of the licensed teachers actually carry…that would mean that only 2,740 teachers are armed on any given day. There are 133,000 schools in the United States. That means only 2% of all schools would be defended by an armed teacher.

It’s easy to identify holes in such a theory -- even for those who count themselves as diehard gun lovers. And, that’s what makes it utterly frustrating when such ideas become not only mainstream, but the leading answer to correcting what ails our mentally and morally corrupt society. I believe in carrying – and I do carry - a firearm to neutralize dangers posed to me, my family or the public in general. Guns are as equally important to me for putting food on the table. I don’t want anyone, any government, taking my rights away from me, but loudmouthed gun owners who share bad ideas make it way too easy for the other side to win.

So, my challenge to gun owners is this: Don’t be stupid. Don’t get caught up in the emotion of the Newtown tragedy and the emotion and illogic of those who want to limit – even prohibit – our ability to protect ourselves. Take a breather and come back to the debate after the initial smoke has cleared. You – we – need to present to the public at large, as well as elected officials, a reasonable and logical defense for self-defense and offer respectable assessments of what’s wrong with society and how we can fix it.

The right to keep and bear arms is at a crossroads, and it could go down the path we don’t want if we continue to allow our gun-toting brethren to carry themselves in unprofessional and unreasonable ways. Let’s not lose this chance (our last chance?) to save the Second Amendment.

Gasport resident Bob Confer also writes for the New American at TheNewAmerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @bobconfer


This column originally appeared in the 24 December 2012 Lockport Union Sun & Journal

SENIORS AND THE POWER OF FAMILY

Everything is on the table when it comes to the fiscal cliff. Politicians on both sides of the aisle are talking about significant cuts to Medicare. Such talk has been a long time coming. This poorly thought-out and completely unconstitutional program costs taxpayers $555 billion per year and holds nearly $39 trillion in unfunded liabilities. 15% of the federal budget is dedicated to health care for seniors.

Right now many of you think I’m heartless – you think I love money and the Constitution more than I do our elders. It’s no wonder that when I talk about cutting Medicare I am met with an incredulous, "who will take care of the seniors?!”

My response is simply this: Who took care of seniors before Medicare was introduced in 1965 (which really wasn’t that long ago)? The answer: Themselves, charity and their families.

You see, that makes my love and respect for seniors different than yours. You see their wellbeing as the responsibility of the collective (government). I see it as being the responsibility of the individual. That’s a more powerful and meaningful love than that which comes from a federal bureaucracy.

Let’s focus on the last of the three support systems for senior citizens, since it’s the most important one of them all -- family. It used to be that family – and the love, strength, and support that came from it –meant something. “The Waltons” weren’t just some fanciful fictional creation from the mind of Earl Hammer. They reflected what he felt and saw growing up in rural Virginia during the Great Depression. The Waltons in all their extended-family glory (where Grandma and Grandpa lived with or very near their children and grandchildren) represented the typical American family for a good portion of the last century. In 1900, 57% of all adults aged 65 or older lived with their descendants.

But, things changed significantly in the mid-to-late 1900s. Rather than living within their means and the means of their families all the while contributing to the emotional and intellectual development of the extended household, seniors instead distanced themselves from their families, and their families from them. Grandpa was no longer living with John and Olivia while helping to raise John-Boy and his siblings. Instead, Modern Grandpa kept to himself and struggled to pay the bills in his lifelong home. Maybe he “downsized” or opted for life in a retirement community, miles away – and sometimes states away – from his kin. By 1990, less than 17% of seniors lived with their young – a 72% drop!

This development – the dismantling of the extended family -- was encouraged by the benevolence of the federal government. The oldsters became independent because they became wards of the state (which is totally oxymoronic). First, FDR’s Social Security gave them the entitlement of old age income. Then, LBJ’s Medicare supplemented this social welfare. With both, they no longer needed the family to survive, and the family believed they didn’t need to take care of the grandparents.

It’s no coincidence that, over that same time period, the nuclear family changed as well – divorces and/or single parent homes abound and it seems like two-parent or original-parent households are now an abnormality. Could it be because the elders and their important and varied life lessons – especially those of love, respect and maturity that could have done wonders for young married couples --- are no longer in the same home? Now that emotional support is only intermittently found through the telephone or emails rather than person-to-person, day-to-day. And, during those relatively rare times when young adults do interact with their parents, do you really think they want to burden them with the woes of their relationships, or the struggles of raising the little ones?

What I’m getting at this: We as Americans should never have gotten into this jam where we think grandparents need government.

Grandparents need their families and families need their grandparents.

And, America needs them all. Call me old-fashioned, but the family unit – founded on love and support – is the basic building block of our nation; strong and just families that are mature and respectable will create a country that is the very same. Too many broken and weak families create a country of similar ill temperament. 

Gasport resident Bob Confer also writes for the New American at TheNewAmerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @bobconfer

This column originally appeared in the 17 December 2012 Lockport Union Sun & Journal

Obama is a threat to farms

In 2010 and 2011 the Food and Drug Administration focused on the suppression of unpasteurized milk distribution across state lines. Among the targets of their stings were food clubs and the Amish. The arcane rules against raw milk were enforced — at gunpoint no less — despite the health benefits of the beverage and the freedom that people should have to willingly ingest the foods they want in the manner they’d like.

In 2011, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration had a plan to override states’ rights and reclassify farming vehicles and implements as commercial vehicles, requiring hundreds of thousands of farms workers to get commercial drivers licenses (CDLs). Also, the language within those regulations would have reclassified farming as interstate commerce, which would have allowed federal control of all farming activities. Fortunately, a last minute flurry during the public comment period prevented these regulations from becoming the law of the land.

Later that year, the Department of Labor came out with a draft of new labor laws that would have forever harmed agriculture by preventing 14- to 17-year-olds from doing a wide variety of farming tasks, which included working with and around tractors and powered equipment and all acts of animal husbandry. This would have kept thousands of teens unemployed and prevented their exposure to the lifestyle of farming in their formative years. This was stopped by intense public feedback which had been led by this newspaper and columnist.

Those issues represent some of the more significant assaults Washington levied against farming in President Obama’s first term. Many more policies were broached, many more initiated. If what the Obama Administration did or wanted to do to agriculture over the first four years is any indication of what the next four will bring, farmers should take notice. Since the President doesn’t have to worry about reelection and the heads of the various offices know that they likely have just four years of job security left (and want to leave a legacy), farmers may be subject to some significant abuses by the administration.

Farmers — and those who enjoy their produce — are probably asking themselves, “why does this administration hate farming?” The answer comes down to freedom.

This president is no fan of freedom in its truest sense, since it requires a semblance of personal responsibility and personal liberty, and the trials, tribulations, and outcomes that come with it. In his version of freedom people flourish under a watchful government that protects the people not only from one another, but from themselves as well. He prefers they be saddled with laws, regulations and standards so they remain safe, comfortable and uniform.

Among our greatest personal liberties is food freedom; that people may enter into an economic compact with any supplier they’d like in order to acquire the foods they want. We’ve seen an explosion in those circles in recent years (a result of the liberty, organic food, and locavore movements). Now there are 7,684 farmers’ markets nationwide (up from 2,863 just 12 years ago). In New York alone, one out of every five farms engages in direct-to-consumer sale. That activity is a direct threat to the bureaucratic system put in play at the federal level, as roadside stands and food staying within the individual states eliminate not only the middle man, but the watchful eye and guiding hand of Big Brother, too. By sticking their noses into food production and sale at the local level, it’s likely that Obama’s team feels they can gain control of our transactions, our diets, our bodies and our freedoms.

It’s patently obvious that the Obama administration has an inherent disdain for farming, the heart and soul of this country and one of the last true wealth-creators of our economy.

This should worry farmers because we have four more years of a leader who once boasted to Russia’s head of state that, "after my election, I have more flexibility."

More telling and chilling words were never said.

Bob Confer is a Gasport resident and vice president of Confer Plastics Inc. in North Tonawanda. E-mail him at bobconfer@juno.com.

------------------------------------------------------------

This column originally ran in the 10 December 2012 Greater Niagara Newspapers