Newtown, Connecticut: The Libertarian Party Gets It Right.

I was amazed, but the Libertarian National Committee issued a fantastic press release in reaction to the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut last week:

For Immediate Release
Dec. 16, 2012

Families throughout the nation mourn the horrific deaths of 26 people, including 20 young children, killed Friday during a Newtown, Conn., mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

“It’s impossible to imagine the depths of despair and grief that the victims’ families are experiencing right now,” said Geoffrey J. Neale, Chair of the Libertarian National Committee. “Our hearts go out to every one of them.”

In the immediate aftermath of news surrounding the shootings, pundits and politicians called for new restrictions on firearm ownership, exactly the opposite of the approach needed to combat tragic gun violence in schools.

“We've created a 'gun-free zone,' a killing zone, for the sickest criminals on the face of the Earth," said R. Lee Wrights, vice-chair of the Libertarian Party. "We've given them an open killing field, and we've made the children of this country the victims."

Wrights pointed out that merely the knowledge that armed people will be present acts as a deterrent for would-be shooters.

"They're not going to walk into a police station, and why not? Because that's where the guns are," he said.

The Federal Gun Free Schools Zone Act prohibits carrying firearms on school grounds in most cases, effectively criminalizing the right to self-defense in places filled with the most vulnerable citizens. Without that federal prohibition, adults working at the school would have been free to defend themselves, very possibly saving the lives of many of the young children and adults who were slain in this horrific tragedy.

"We must stop blinding ourselves to the obvious: Most of these mass killings are happening at schools where self-defense is prohibited," said Carla Howell, executive director of the Libertarian Party. "Gun prohibition sets the stage for the slaughter of innocent children. We must repeal these anti-self-defense laws now to minimize the likelihood they will occur in the future and to the limit the damage done when they do."

Responsible gun owners can and do prevent mass shootings from occurring and escalating.

• A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.
• A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.
• A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.
• A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.
• A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.
• A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.
• A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.
• At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Ore., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon.

For several years after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, gun prohibitionists blocked pilots from carrying firearms. But after it became undeniable that guns are an essential line of defense against hijackers and other terrorists when the lives of innocent passengers are at stake, Congress finally passed legislation allowing it.

It's time to take the same approach with teachers, school administrators, and security guards, who should be allowed to carry the tools necessary to protect the students in their care. It's time to put an end to gun-free zones and make it much easier for responsible adults to arm, train, and protect themselves and the people they love from the violent criminals who seek to harm them.

"You can't depend on somebody else to take care of your own life for you," Wrights said. "It's too precious to put it into the hands of somebody else, particularly when the seconds count."

Amen!

The Ron Paul Newsletters: Turn The Tables

I guess it shouldn't surprise me, now that Ron Paul is rapidly advancing in the polls, that the 'racist' Ron Paul newsletters of the 1980's and 1990's have again achieved national prominence. (for those who don't know what I am talking about, Ron Paul had a paid, investment newsletter published in his name which sometimes used dubious racial and sexual stereotypes in the content.) It is clear from the way Dr Paul has been handling the incessant questions of a hostile press about the newsletters that he considers them a non-issue and a distraction from his message. He just wants to get on to issues that impact American voters today. After all, he has--repeatedly--disavowed them and stated that they were written for him and he never read them. In this recent clip one might even be able to discern a bit of embarrassment:

As a longtime supporter I can certainly sympathize with the good Doctor, but I think  for several reasons he is responding incorrectly. He needs to turn the tables and bring it up in every media interview, campaign appearance, and floor speech he gives. Think I am nuts? Read on:

The way the issue stands right now--and the way the media has spun it is that Ron Paul is dodging the issue. The media smell blood in the water, and they will continue to attack until they have destroyed him. For one because he represents everything they despise and fear, all the while maintaining that they are just doing their job. Since they will bring it up anyway--at least at first--Dr Paul needs to bring it up himself. And then use it as a platform to expand on his message of individual liberty. If he can successfully turn it from a perceived weakness into a strength, the media will run from it as fast as they can. Meanwhile, he controls the message and gets it out as he wants it presented.

What kind of platform can 'racist' newsletters be used for? I can think of several and I am certain others can think of more. My favorite goes something like this:

Evil Reporter: "Congressman Paul, how could you have allowed someone to publish newsletters in your name which contained hateful, racist language back in the 1980's and 1990's?"
Good Doctor: "Well, as I have stated repeatedly, I disavow any racist or sexist language that was used in those newsletters. If I had read them at the time, they would never have been published. It was 20 or 30 years ago, and I was busy in my practice delivering babies and raising my family. When help writing them was offered, I accepted and never really looked at the actual published content. But you know, regardless of how distasteful they could be, it really shows just how long this class warfare using the power of coercion--government--has been going on. After the civil war, government power was used discriminate against blacks. Then in the 1960's as a sort of dubious compensation, I guess, government power was used to discriminate against whites. With  such rampant governmentally forced legal discrimination, is it any wonder the writer was predicting a race war--"
Evil Reporter: "So you think there will be a race war?"
Good Doctor: "Good heavens no! I have never thought that to begin with; the American people are too good and too smart for that. But it does mean we must get back to the rule of law! Government and laws which favor one group over another causes friction between social groups. It causes the problem. My message--the message of liberty--is one law for all. That is what the 'Rule of Law' as the founders understood it means. That is what the Constitution stands for. Regardless of if you are a Congressman or the President of some Too-Big-To-Fail Bank--or simply an unemployed carpenter or a college student. The same rules must apply to all. Both in economics and in the law." 

"People get along just fine until the government gets involved. 

Anyway, I'm sure you get the idea. I welcome your suggestions.

Bottom line: Ron Paul must own this issue. He cannot shy away from it however distasteful. And even if this seems too difficult to pull off, in my opinion it is worth a try, since Ron Paul's candidacy could well be buried by this issue otherwise.There are still too many undecided, ill-informed or hoodwinked voters who do not realize that the ideas presented in those newsletters are alien to Ron Paul's basic philosophy.

The Single Best Thing About a Ron Paul Presidency

I have been a supporter of Ron Paul since January 2007. That was just before he started his exploratory committee for his run in 2008. I wrote an article about my experiences supporting Ron Paul on the ‘inter-webs’ back then, which you can read here. Needless to say, I am still a supporter and would vote for him if he can just get through the Republican Primary.

However, I have been having doubts that he is up to the job of President. After watching the last couple of debates, he is obviously not as sharp as he was during the 2008 election cycle. If you doubt this, simply go to YouTube and compare his performances during those debates to the most current ones. It should be obvious.

But I think I have come up with a great solution. And a solution that would still let Ron Paul accomplish the most important job he could ever hope to do for this country: Vetoing legislation and repealing regulations.

He simply needs to draft Rand as his Vice Presidential running mate. Rand could handle the ‘heavy lifting’ of the day-to-day performance while Ron could be there to fulfill the explicit Constitutional requirements of the President. Just think how wonderful it would be to have every bill congress passes vetoed—for four whole years. Bliss! 

Shear Bliss.