ARCHIVE ARTICLES

 

 

 
GUN CONTROL AND BUSING -- BOTH ARE MEANS TO TEACH CHILDREN THAT THEIR PARENTS ARE POWERLESS


One of the major effects of busing was to show the children that their parents could not protect them. In Louisville, a child would have to show up at the school bus stop at 5 AM, ride for hours, be sent into a hostile environment to school, and spend hours getting home exhausted. And his parents could not do anything. The Powers That Be could do anything to them that they wanted to, and their parents, whom they thought were giants in their world, could do nothing.

Lake High informs me that in Britain, burglars just march into private homes and take whey want, with the parents and children right there.

In Britain, gun control performs the same function busing did here. In Britain, burglary is much more frequent than in the United
States. And the burglars no longer strike when the family is away. Some 43% -- or three in seven -- robberies in Britain occur WHILE THE FAMILY IS AT HOME.

Any means of self-defense is absolutely forbidden by British law, so the thugs just march in.

In the evil and self-defense-minded US, only six percent of burglaries occur when the family is at home.

Can you imagine the effect this has on the children in the United Kingdom? Having their parents at home means absolutely nothing. The thugs just come in and push them out of the way.

The big liberal kick right now is to get all guns out of homes with children in them. Naturally, like busing, this is just for the good of the kids. But it also removes the ability of parents to protect their children.

Every single judge I know of who ordered busing had grandchildren in PRIVATE SCHOOLS. Likewise, Rosie O'Donnell, the leader in this anti-gun movement, has hired an armed bodyguard for her kid. She and the liberal judges can protect their children. But they fight to prevent the average American from doing it.

If you believe that violence is the worst thing that can happen to people, then you have no right to be a free human being. We have to be willing to face violence in extreme cases to protect our freedom AND OUR SELF-RESPECT. But the British are willing to destroy all the faith of their children in them to keep out weapons for self-defense. They think getting rid of weapons by law-abiding people will prevent violence. Obviously, they are wrong. But even if they were right, can you imagine allowing thieves to take over your home, with your children there, for anything in the world.

 

 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF SOUTH CAROLINA?


At the University of South Carolina, I was a member of the Euphradian Society, one of two debating societies dating back to 1806. When I joined the Euphradians, there was a single vote at the end of each debate.

That vote only decided which side had made the best case. I pushed through an amendment which changed that to two votes, one on the best debaters, and the second on the question itself.

In other words, we had one vote to decide which side debated best, and another vote to decide which side of the question we actually favored.

Each year the Euphradians held a joint debate with the other debate society, the Clariosophic Society. Once while I was there the debate was on the question: "Resolved, that South Carolina should be become a Commonwealth in the United States."

It is true that Virginia calls itself "The Commonwealth of Virginia" and that Louisiana 's official title is "The Commonwealth of Louisiana," but that was not what we had in mind. What we meant was the real, legal commonwealth status only one area of the United States enjoys: the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Puerto Rico has all the advantages of statehood with the exception of congressmen and senators. It has only a single non-voting
delegate in congress. But in return for giving up its right to help legislate for the rest of the country, Puerto Rico HAS ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGNTY WITHIN ITS OWN BORDERS AND THE RIGHT TO SECEDE.

So the question we were debating was this: Would South Carolina be willing to give up its rights to make laws for the rest of the United States in return for complete sovereignty within our own borders?

The vote that resulted was very revealing. On the first vote, it was decided that those arguing for continued statehood had made the best points. But on the second vote A SOLID MAJORITY FAVORED COMMONWEALTH STATUS FOR SOUTH CAROLINA!

Those of us advocating Southern sovereignty today have the impression that no one has favored it since 1860. This vote proves that that is not so. This vote was not the result of a movement, or of any preparation at all. In the late 1950's, when the question came up, a roomful of pretty representative educated Southerners voted that they would prefer sovereignty over our own affairs to running the affairs of the rest of the country.

 

 

Home | Current Articles | Article Archive | About Bob Whitaker | Contact Bob | Links | Privacy Policy

MENU

Home

Current Articles

Article Archive

Whitaker's World View

World View Archives

About Bob Whitaker

Contact Bob

Links

Privacy Policy


Current Issue
Issue: June 2, 2000
Editor: Virgil H. Huston, Jr.
© 2001 WhitakerOnLine.org


Email List
Sign up for our email list to be notified of site updates:
E-Mail:

© Copyright 2001, 2002. All rights reserved. Contact: bob@whitakeronline.org