July has been a busy month for accusations of perceived racism.

We’ve had the story of minority children being banned from a swimming club because the president of the club, and the members, were “racist”, a charge that the club and its members deny. 

We have a “distinguished” black Harvard professor (Henry Louis Gates Jr. who, by the way, just happens to be buddies with President Obama. Isn’t it funny how all of Obama’s friends seem to be loud, obnoxious radicals? ) accusing Sgt. James Crowley, a white police officer who arrested him for disorderly conduct, of “racial profiling”, though I challenge anyone to actually explain where the profiling took place on the part of the white officer.  The two men are supposedly sharing a beer with Obama tonight at the White House. Or, they could be throwing them at each other for all I know.   The "beer summit" is probably going on now as I write this. 

This morning I read yet another story of perceived racism.   This time, the accusation is being thrown by the Democrats in reference to the GOP, who they claim have refused to nominate Sotomayor on the basis that she is Latina.  On top of this, they have also given the GOP dire warnings that failure to nominate Sotomayor will create a Latino voter backlash against them in their respective districts.

Here are the plain facts…

First, Sotomayor is going to be nominated, period. It doesn’t matter if every single Republican voted against her; she still has the full backing of the Democratic majority. The deal is as good as done. I suspect that since she’s going to be nominated anyway, the GOP feels that they may as well go ahead and vote their conscience.  Why do the Democrats need their vote anyway? I guess so they can say, in the event Sotomayor screws up; “See?  Republicans voted for her too, it’s not all our fault!” 

Seems to be the same scenario as the GOP’s refusal to vote for the current health care bill, but I digress.

Second, the fact that she is Latina has nothing to do with the GOP’s concerns about her. It’s her policies that disturb them, not her race.    She has made disturbing comments in the past that have made the Republicans wonder if she could be a true defender of the Constitution of the United States, and not make her rulings based on her personal beliefs or feelings. That is, after all, the judge’s job; to make their rulings based on the law, not personal empathy.  Besides, anyone remember Justice Clarence Thomas?  Guess who his biggest supporters are?  That's right, the Republicans.

It's interesting to note that the Democrats weren’t this protective of another former Latino Supreme Court Justice nominee, Miguel Estrada, during President George H.W. Bush’s term. Don’t know who Miguel Estrada is? Look him up in your favorite search engine. I think you’ll find the Democrat’s attitude towards Mr. Estrada quite enlightening, and that’s as far as I’ll go with that.  

So, you tell me… who’s really throwing the race cards around now?

Sources:

When Democrats Derailed a GOP Latino Nominee: Byron York, Washington Examiner.com, 05/28/09

Dems Warn GOP of Backlash for Opposing Sotomayor: Julie Hirshfeld Davis, Associated Press, 07/29/09

A few days ago, an amendment (the "Thune Amendment"), was introduced by Senator John Thune (R-SD). It was theoretically supposed to make it easier for holders of Concealed Carry Permits to legally carry their concealed firearms into other states that also honored CWP's. However, it was narrowly defeated in the senate by a margin of 58 - 39, just two votes short of the necessary 60 vote majority. The biggest concern of the "nay" voters is that they believed that some CWP holders, who may have obtained their permits from a state of residence which had lax requirements, would be a "danger" to the populace of the states that they were visiting which had stricter requirements.

As the Thune Amendment required that the guest observe all of the laws and conditions for CWP holders of the host state, I'm not sure what the big controversy was, or even if such an amendment was even necessary. Still, the amendment was defeated; what's done is done.

Originally, I was planning on writing my thoughts on the amendment itself, contemplating whether state's rights trumped federal law, or even if the 2^nd Amendment of the Constitution trumped state law, but as I surfed through various websites and blogs, I came across a vast amount of myths and misinformation from bloggers, so-called journalists, as well as politicians, concerning CWP holders. The arguments and fears expressed against CWP holders varied from being somewhat reasonable... if naïve... to outright ridiculous.

Then, I figured that as a CWP holder myself... why not try to educate you a little bit about what the requirements and responsibilities of a CWP holder are? At best, you might learn something. At worst, you'll ignore what I say and call me an idiot. Since you won't be the first one to do so, I figure I have nothing to lose.

And so, here is what I went through to obtain a CWP in my resident state of Florida (I will also be providing links so that you can check the requirements of your own state.)

The first step was to visit the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services: Division of Licensing website. Feel free to browse the page, which contains many links concerning firearms licensing laws as well as other departments. The first link on the website I had to browse to get started was the "Check eligibility for a Concealed Weapon/Firearm license". I then had to answer a list of questions, some which could admittedly be considered a bit silly (my favorite one is "are you a fugitive from justice?" Bet you can guess what happens if you answer "yes" to that one...).

Since I've been a good little citizen for most of my life, and having received an honorable discharge from the navy, I received a congratulatory message saying that based on my answers; I was qualified to have a concealed weapon.

Of course, as it was pointed out on the webpage, this little quiz does not actually qualify you for a permit; it's merely a way of seeing for yourself if you could apply for one.

I was then asked to click on a link to determine what the next step is. As you can see, you are then asked to either download, or request printed copies of various forms and documents. I, being the type that likes to have physical copies on hand, requested them all by mail. You are then taken to a Form/Pamphlet Request page where you complete your order. The forms are free of charge, and in my case, took about two weeks to arrive.

Inside the packet, I received a 31-page booklet, an application, a fingerprint card, and a return envelope to stuff all the requested documents in to send back to the Department of Agriculture.

You can read the booklet for yourself, which is a PDF file for the class "W" concealed weapon/firearm license. Just make sure you have a little time on your hands.

I then filled out the form, which requested personal information and a list of questions to answer. Finally, I had to sign the form, and have it notarized at a nearby police station . While I was there, I also needed to be fingerprinted. I should point out that while I had to use the old ink method, if you're lucky enough to be close to a police department that uses the electronic scan method (known as "LIVE SCAN"), get that. It's cleaner, quicker and cheaper (I think), but you must do this at a police department for a CWP, it can't be done at the UPS office.

With the forms, notarization and fingerprinting finished, now I had to obtain a passport size photo for my permit. I recommend Walgreens for this service; 2 photos for around $9.00, and it only took about 15 minutes.

Since I received firearms training during my time in the military, I didn't need to submit a certificate for a firearms safety course. However, I did need to submit a copy of my discharge papers, or DD-214.

Into the envelope went the forms, photo, discharge papers, and a check for $117 ($75 license fee, $42 fingerprint fee) which was then mailed back to the Florida Department of Agriculture. This was back on December 23^rd. I then waited... and waited... and waited. Finally, on the last week of May (!), I received my permit. Normally, the waiting period is 90 days, but due to the increased demand after the Obama election, I had to wait a few more weeks than normal.

The permit was enclosed with a reminder that while the permit authorizes me to carry the firearm; it does not authorize me to use it, as well as reminders of where I can't carry it. I also received a question and answer pamphlet, and a sheet that described the laws in different states that would honor Florida's CWP's.

And that is what I needed to do to receive a CWP in the state of Florida.

On this link from the Florida Division of Licensing website, there is a list of reciprocity states (states that will honor your permit) that, when clicked, will take you directly to that respective state's website.

If you're curious to see what's necessary to qualify for a permit in your state (if it's allowed), have a look at this link here, courtesy of "CarryConcealed.net". By no means is this the only site of this kind available. Try googling "concealed carry by state", and you'll find several other sites.

So there you have it. Hopefully, with the aid of the links I've provided above, you now know a little bit more about CWP's than you did before you read this.

In the near future, I will be posting a related article that should dispel some of the common fears and myths that I've read that are directed against CWP holders.

 

Judging from the reports I’ve seen about the controversy over the Valley Swim Club in Huntington Valley, Pennsylvania over the last couple of days, you would think that we’d taken a step back in time.

Minority children crying on camera over being ejected by the club, angry protestors picketing outside the facility, club members, and the club president himself, trying to justify the clubs actions… yes, Jim Crow is definitely making a comeback. Isn’t this supposed to be the year 2009? Aren’t there laws against this sort of thing? Where are Al and Jesse when you need them?

OK… stop. Everyone just stop, back up a bit, and take a few deep breathes before we all hyperventilate and pass out here. Let’s take a closer look to what’s actually going on.

You’ve heard the story by now. Children from the “Creative Steps Day Care” center, which is comprised mostly of minority children, were ejected from the club last Friday after complaints were issued by some of the club members. 

According to one tearful young boy interviewed on camera (as any member of the media can tell you, crying children are guaranteed to tug at a viewer’s heart strings), club members were overheard asking each other “why all the black kids were here” and that some woman worried aloud that they would “do something” to her child. 

Days later, the day care center received a full refund of its check in the amount of $1,950, with no explanation.  The center was informed that they were no longer allowed inside the club.

Surely, there’s no other explanation here than racism, right? 

Wrong. Here is what the media is glossing over.

The first thing is that the “Creative Steps” kids were not the only ones who received their deposits back and asked not to return. There were two other day care centers whose invitations were canceled as well. Neither of these day care centers was comprised of minority children. 

The second thing is that, according to the staff, the club realized that they would be unable to accommodate all of these children, and canceled their invitations due to safety reasons. Can you imagine what would have happened if one of these kids had drowned because there weren’t enough life guards on duty? 

Also, the complaints that the staff received from the members weren’t about the kids being black, it was about the sheer number of them in the pool at once. The members were unaware that the club had issued these invitations, so they were probably surprised at the sight of a bunch of kids streaming in and jumping into the pool at once. Wouldn’t you be?

The third thing is that the crying child on camera said that he heard members of the club making the comments, not any of the club staff.  Were some of those club members bigoted? I think so, yes. I have no reason to believe that the kid was lying.   However, that doesn’t mean that the club itself is responsible for those views.

This brings me to the comment that the president of the club, John Duesler, made in which he stated that the children would “change the complexion and atmosphere” of the club. While the word “complexion” has different meanings, and one of them does mean the color or texture of a person’s face (though not necessarily in a racial sense), it can also mean “the general attitude or inclination towards” something, in this case, a future potential club member’s attitude towards the swim club.   

Would you be more… or less… inclined to join a swim club if you knew that it would be taken over by a bunch of screaming kids at certain times of the week? Be honest now. 

Some well-meaning club members have argued that the president chose his words poorly and as a result, his comment was taken out of context. I disagree. 

I say that if people had just stopped to think for a few seconds about what he was trying to say, rather than getting emotional and flying off the handle, this mess could have been avoided. It’s easy to tell someone in hindsight that he should have “chosen his words more carefully” when you’re not the one that has to give the statements. Maybe you should brush up on your vocabulary.

Also, to those club members who were interviewed in front of the protestors, criticizing the club president while defending the club itself… cut the crap. 

I realize that you were nervous standing in front of those protestors. I could tell just by watching you. I don’t blame you for being nervous, and I commend you for at least having the courage to go out in front of them.   But I’m sick and tired of watching people, who have nothing to apologize for, bowing and scraping before some special interest group (or mob) in the hopes of avoiding their wrath, and making statements along the lines of:

 “Mr. Duesler’s words were taken out of context, but it was a very, very dumb thing to say. We’re all friendly here”. 

Please, spare me.

 If you really feel that the Mr. Duesler did not mean what the protestors thought he said, if you believe that he did nothing wrong, than stand with him instead of throwing him to the wolves while you make your getaway. If I was the president, I would’ve kicked you right out of the club.

And finally, this last bit is for you, Senator Arlen Specter. I suspect that you’re getting involved in this because you’re fishing for votes under the guise that you’re “defending the downtrodden”. The last thing we need is for some mis-informed, self-righteous, turncoat politician like you sticking your nose where it doesn’t belong. Don’t you have another massive spending bill to pass somewhere? Concentrate on that, instead of sending nasty-grams to Mr. Duesler.  Let the parties involved resolve this.

There’s no racism involved here folks, move along.

Sources:

Swim Club Accused of Racial Discrimination Against Kids: Susan Candiotti and Jean Shin, CNN.com, 07/09/09

Swim Club President Denies Racism in Pool Controversy: Susan Candiotti and Jean Shin, CNN.com, 07/11/09

Independence Day is right around the corner. In just a couple of day's time as of this writing, we'll be witnessing all manner of festivities. Their will be picnics, barbeques, parades, carnivals, patriotic political speeches, and the main event... fireworks displays. That is, if they haven't been banned in your particular city already.

I can't help but wonder, however, how many of the flag-waving, fireworks-shooting revelers actually understand exactly what they're celebrating, particularly the younger ones.

My mind keeps going back to the "man on the street" type interviews that I've seen (and read) some time ago, when a reporter would ask random Americans why we celebrate the Fourth of July.

Few young Americans could even answer that it was to celebrate our independence, and when they were asked who we won our independence from, the answers were cringe-inducing.

Germany, Japan, Mexico, the Soviet Union, France, Vietnam and even Canada were some the answers given. I recall only one semi-correct answer being given; Great Britain. The answer is technically England, but I'll accept Great Britain.

It makes me wonder just what exactly our public (or should I say, government) schools are teaching our kids. It sure as hell isn't American history. However, I bet they can name every atrocity that early America has committed against the "Native Americans", and are able to tell you all about the "American concentration camps" during WWII.

When I look back through history, it's amazing to me how far we have fallen from our ideals from the time that we won our independence. I look at New England, particularly my home state of Massachusetts, and it astounds me that the citizens of this region, which was once at the forefront of the fight for independence from a once oppressive, foreign government, are so eager to rush into the arms of governments, both federal and state, that want to oppress them again, this time under the guise of them doing "what's best for them". They have gone from declaring "no taxation without representation" to endorsing tax... after tax... after tax.

How did America, as a whole, get to the point that we've openly embraced a man like Barack Obama who, in his own book (Dreams of My Father), admitted that he sought the companionship of Marxist and Socialist students and professors, whose views are the very antithesis of our founding father's beliefs, because he felt that he "didn't fit in"? You can say all you want that we've all done crazy things in college, but obviously, Obama's friend's ideals have stuck with him.

When you observe the Independence Day revelers this weekend, think of how many of them voted for the "change we can believe in". Wonder how many actually understand what Independence Day is about. If you have kids, ask them if they learned from school what it means. Their answers, or lack of them, may shock and depress you. Or, who knows... maybe they'll surprise you and actually get it right. If you're feeling really brave, ask someone who you know to be an Obama supporter what Independence Day means.

Please understand that I did not write this for the purpose of depressing you or spoiling your holiday fun. I myself will be spending the 4^th with my family (who do understand what the holiday means). My intent here is simply to make you think, and to look at the holiday with a different eye than you may have in the past.

For those of you who understand the significance of Independence Day, enjoy your weekend, and please be especially careful (and patient) on the roads out there after the fireworks are over. There'll be a lot of people out in the street that are just begging to get run over.

And if that fuse on your firecracker looks too short, for heaven's sake, don't light it. I don't want any of you to wind up in the emergency room this year, or worse.

 

President Barack Obama, who was so reluctant to “meddle” in the affairs of Iran during its people’s protest over a fraudulent election, immediately leaped into action after receiving word of a “coup” in Honduras. 

Obama, along with 33 other countries including Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, condemned the coup as “illegal” and demanded that the ousted president, Manual Zelaya, to be re-instated into power within 72 hours (of the coup), or face suspension from the Organization of American States, which is based in Washington.

Obama stated that “We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the democratically elected president there. It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections.”

I guess Obama missed the part where Zelaya was trying to amend the Honduras Constitution to influence the next election in his favor.

It should be noted that Zelaya is an extreme leftist, who gained his office by pandering to the “poor and less fortunate”, much the same way Obama did. That could at least partially explain Obama’s solidarity with him (and his reluctance to state any type of solidarity to the protesting Iranians).   

Here is the story behind the coup, as I understand it so far…

Manual Zelaya wanted to run for another term of office as president. His current term ends this year. However, under the terms of the constitution of Honduras, he is ineligible, as presidents are only allowed a single, 4-year term.

Zelaya, wanting to follow the example of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, decided that he wanted to call a convention to amend the constitution for the purpose of allowing himself the chance to serve unlimited terms (this is disputed, as he claims that he intended to step down when his term is over. Then again, he’s not the first politician to claim that). 

He decided to call a referendum (popular, public vote, as opposed to a legislative vote) to arrange the convention. However, the congress has outlawed the referendum, as the president does not have that power.

Not only did the Congress outlaw the referendum, but so did the Supreme Court and the electoral tribunal. When he tried to force the military to distribute the ballots to vote for the referendum (which are believed to have been provided by Hugo Chavez), the military, under the command of armed forces chief General Romeo Vasquez, refused, as they knew that his actions were illegal. Zelaya fired Vasquez, which resulted in top military officials, as well as the defense minister, to resign in protest. Orders by the court to re-instate Vasquez were refused. Zelaya later led a mob of his supporters over to an air force base to collect and distribute the ballots themselves. 

The Honduras military, presumably under orders to protect the constitutional law that Zelaya was breaking, finally arrested him, at home in his pajamas, and exiled him to Costa Rica.  The Congress has since temporarily instated congressional leader Roberto Micheletti as interim (temporary) president, until the next election can be held.

While the Congress has stated that it has voted to accept a letter of resignation from Zelaya, the ousted president claims that he’s never written such a letter.  Note that the Congress says that it votedto accept a letter; it never claimed that it received one.

And that, ladies and gentleman, are the events behind the coup to the best of my knowledge. I won’t claim that it’s 100% accurate, but as I’m doing all this research myself in one day, I wouldn’t be surprised if I missed a few details.

Now we come to the real questions…

Obama, as well as the United Nations, have called this an “illegal, military coup”. 

Is it really?   True, the military arrested Zelaya, but it was under the pretense that he was breaking Constitutional law. How is the arrest illegal? 

Also, the phrase “military coup” implies that the military has taken over the government. The problem is that they didn’t. Once Zelaya was arrested and deported (he is allowed to return to Honduras, but only as an ordinary citizen, which in my view, is pretty generous), the congressional chief replaced him as a temporary president until the next elections could be held this November.

Another question; has the government of Honduras actually changed? Not that I can tell. I’ve seen no reports so far of Roberto Micheletti’s policies being really any different from Zelaya’s or the Congress, so how has the government changed?

This would be like President Obama attempting to pull the same stunt as Zelaya, getting arrested by our military, and being replaced by Joe Biden, with Nancy Pelosi taking Biden’s place.

Now, would our government have really changed? Biden and Pelosi’s policies almost mirror that of Obama’s. Congress is the same. Both the House and the Senate remain the same. They’re still controlled by left-wing Democrats. The Supreme Court justices would remain the same. There’s no real reason for Biden to change anything, after all. What would really be different, other than the fact that we have a president that’s not so suave and charming anymore?  

This isn’t as if John McCain got the military under his command, had them arrest Obama, threw out Biden as well as all the other major offices and replaced them with people loyal to him. That’s a real coup.

Assuming that the information is accurate, personally, I commend the Hondurans for having the backbone to take the actions that they did.  It should be noted that Zaleya’s popularity was only 25% out of 18 regional leaders. His only real support, as mentioned before, came from the “poor and less fortunate”, who bought into the usual leftist promise that he’d “fight for the people”.   

On an end note, any politician that uses the “fight for the people” phrase should raise a red flag with you. These are the ones who promise you everything, yet rarely deliver, and the few times they do, it’s always at the expense of a targeted “hated” class, usually the wealthy. There are a lot of dictators out there, past and present, who were fond of that phrase. It’s too bad they don’t set themselves up for ousting as easily as Zaleya did.

Sources:

Honduran President Ousted by Military: Carin Zissis, 6/28/09

President of Honduras: Wikipedia

Support for Ousted Honduran President Raises Questions About ‘Democratic Leadership’: Stephen Clark, Foxnews.com 06/30/09

Obama’s Swift Stand on Honduras Coup: Associated Press, 06/30/09

Honduras Supreme Court Justice Calls President’s Ouster Legal: Joshua Goodman & Blake Schmidt, Bloomberg Press, 07/01/09