|
|
|
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
|
|
|