Additional Titles

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other
Longenecker
Articles:

How Emergency Departments View Shootings

 

More
Longenecker
Articles:

 

 

 

 

2008: LET'S BE FAIR


By John Longenecker
February 2, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

No, Longenecker hasnít lost his mind, heís just being facetious

Marie Parente said that when you sit down to negotiate something you already have, you lose. Enter the CINOís in the 2008 election from their respective current offices of Senator or Governor or War Hero. CINO: Conservative In Name Only.

A man with a camera says heís looking to meet his official escort who will go with him to photograph a rhino at the Zoo. The Aide says that he can photograph the Governor, because heís a RINO whoís handy, he likes being photographed, and heís not behind bars.

Ladies and Gentlemen, every year, we are in the fight for our lives, thanks to ever-increasing, intrusive high-technology, anger against the United States without and within, looting of America and global cooperation against the U.S. like never before. And next year, it, too, will be more of the fight for our lives and our childrenís lives, thanks to even more concentration of hostilities and technologies. Itís time to point out for the umpteenth time that the Left in America and the hatred around the world are not dealing with America in good faith. Media pundits and analysts want to be generous, open-minded and fair, but it costs all of us by not seeing the enemy for what it is. The time for self-respect and decorum is past. Itís time to be frank.

It may sound silly to say that enemies of the United States donít play fair, but itís even sillier to respond to them in kindness and respect as if they are dealing with us in good faith, merely with a difference of opinion and that we, too, should respond in good faith. It is not a difference of opinion, it is outright hate, or looting or other takings, each gaining ground almost entirely to our observation of courtesy. But, it no longer matters: it is simply the most contemporary of a series of fights for our lives, and when we try to remain respectful and tolerant, we lose what we already have.

Marie Parentís idea of sitting down to negotiate what we already have was not meant to say that we can talk and still withhold as we wish Ė it meant that once we even agree to talk about it, we have negotiated away our Image in firmness and resolve, and the enemy now knows that perhaps not today, but someday, they will get what they want. Havenít we already learned that from the shape of the table in Viet Nam and other times?

The enemy is getting what they want already, simply by the silliness of Fairness and Tolerance from the CINOís who wish to appease ó Iím sorry, who wish to appeal to voters who like niceness over resolve. Instead of looking for strength, voters are looking for friendliness and cooperation.

Part of the problem in this is that Americans donít have the stomach to tolerate adversity and to accept what must be done in meeting it. Americans cannot live with the feelings and the concept that things have come to this. Itís easier to deal with when it is believed to be subject to talk or reason. But this is a trap, this idea of sitting down to talk over something we already have. The subject should be entirely out of the question.

What we have any enemy wants is our Sovereignty in this country, and it is this we are sitting down to talk about, and to give away. Modern teenagers, young folks and Liberals donít have a clue as to what Sovereignty is here. Sovereignty is what makes us the destination of egress for the world. Sovereignty is our authority we have in oversight over officials, and that means right to the top, President of The United States.

Some of the 2008 Candidates answer questions as if they want to give away the store in fairness. Even-handedness in the rhetoric of pundits and the candidatesí answers to questions is a silly and weak response Iíve noticed among the so-called Conservatives.

I wonder if it is a sort of Stockholm Syndrome kind of thinking that surrenders all to the forces attacking us in the defense-mechanism hope that if we join them, we wonít be devoured by them. In such a defense mechanism, one might believe one is being fair, but one is actually being intimidated, and gives ground in deference to certain votes instead of being guided more by a set of patriotic truths. And truths are what voters are looking for. Tolerance with appeasement, to my way of thinking, is a sort of subtraction key on the political calculation keyboard that negates the positive things or planks on the platform they stand on. It might be recognized by voters as talking out of both sides of oneís mouth, but it is actually surrendering something they donít have to surrender, by giving the indication across the table that they would not undermine America today, but at some time in the future.

In hoping for another Ronald Reagan, conservatives and libertarians are looking for a President who will know patriotic truths and who will not negotiate them away tomorrow or ever.

If I had one issue to quiz 2008 Candidates, it would be this: where do you stand on concealed carry of handguns? Do you believe that armed citizens can negate the need for many expensive and burdensome anti-violence policies? What would you like to know about the subject?

If I had one bit of advice to give 2008 Candidates, it would be for them to get with gun owners to learn just where and how armed citizens contribute to safe streets under the sovereign authority they possess by law. Incidentally, their sovereign authority trumps anything against it, including silly, expensive, burdensome anti-violence policies.

Donít worry about the fears of more guns in the hands of your constituents: with already 300 million guns in the hands of 80 million constituents, none of those fears will come true. They havenít in three hundred years. On the other hand, the horrors of gun bans come true every day.

For 2008 Candidates who want to address Crime and Violence as President of the United States, itís time for conservatives to understand that the law-abiding armed citizens play an important role in fighting crime, and are supported by beat law enforcement officers more than one might have been led to believe. Forty states affirm concealed carry, and the next President has to ask why the rest of our nationís big cities balk at such a successful measure.

For any candidate who wants to be fair, the fairest thing is to be loyal to constituents and their rights, not to the anti-violence lobby who doesnít have a civil right on their side of the argument. Some of these are tax exempt non-profits operating against a civil right secured by law. It wouldnít be fair to hear them in even-handedness when the interest of the nation has a civil right on its side with all legal authority to act. In the end, this means stomaching the reality that the armed citizen is and always has been the best policy in fighting crime, and it is the law.

It might be a very good idea to discover at this time just who that candidate is and to support him.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!


Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Of course, every citizen must not sit out this election in protest, but must stand up and be counted. Every citizen must register to vote, get out the vote in others and get out and vote, and trust the Vote.

John Longeneckerís most powerful essay is available as a Monograph suitable for bulk purchase for your patriotic seminars, womenís conferences and other leadership and inspirational gatherings. Go to ContrastMediaPress.com

© 2008 - John Longenecker - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale


John Longenecker was one of the first Paramedics in Los Angeles EMS. Today, he a father of three, author, columnist, talk show guest and founder of the Good For The Country Foundation, a 501(c)(3) patriotic think tank examining policy adverse to the public interest.

Website: GoodForTheCountry.org

E-Mail: john.ljr@verizon.net


 

Home

 

 

 

 

 

 

Part of the problem in this is that Americans donít have the stomach to tolerate adversity and to accept what must be done in meeting it. Americans cannot live with the feelings and the concept that things have come to this.