Mountain Views News          Saturday, January 15, 2011

12

LEFT TURN/RIGHT TURN

 Mountain Views News Saturday, January 15, 2011


HOWARD Hays

 As I See It

Truth And Deficits 

GREG Welborn

Hearing of something like the 
shootings in Tucson, my first reaction 
is to tune in a news channel. 
When I did, though, all I 
heard were protests of “Don’t 
blame us! “It’s not our fault!” I 
was reminded of a kid who runs 
home from school to advise, “If you get a call from 
the principal’s office, I had nothin’ to do with it!”

They were trying to distance themselves from 
remarks by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, 
mentioned in Susan’s column last week, who said 
“(T)he anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in 
this country is getting to be outrageous”, adding that 
“people who are unbalanced are especially susceptible 
to vitriol”.

Megyn Kelly would have none of it as she interviewed 
Sheriff Dupnik on Fox News. The words 
“Democrat” and “Republican” hadn’t been spoken 
until Kelly noted that “ . . . you ran for office as a 
Democrat” before asking, “. . . why are you putting a 
political spin on this?” Sheriff Dupnik responded by 
recalling a time when “politicians from different parties 
could sit down, forget about their ideology, and 
work on the country’s problems.” Kelly then pressed 
about whether it was appropriate for him to “stir the 
pot” with such partisan remarks.

Tea Party Nation leader Justin Phillips described 
Sheriff Dupnik as a “leftist sheriff” and the shooter 
as a “leftist lunatic”. The Heritage Foundation pointed 
their finger at other peoples’ words in warning 
that those who “point their fingers at other peoples’ 
words” will “only further coarsen our civil discourse.”

Bill Clinton, speaking on the anniversary of the 
Oklahoma City bombing, observed that words enter 
a “vast echo chamber” and “fall on the serious and 
the delirious, alike; they fall on the connected and 
the unhinged, alike.”

Negative ads and incendiary rhetoric are decried, 
but are employed because they work. Republican 
strategists long ago decided to turn Franklin Roosevelt’s 
“the only thing we have to fear is fear itself” on 
its head, telling voters to be afraid - to be very afraid.

In 2000, Al Gore failed to carry his home state of 
Tennessee because voters were told to be afraid he 
would take away their guns. In 2004, Sen. John Kerry 
(D-MA) lost because voters were told to be afraid 
this decorated combat veteran would decimate the 
military. In 2008, we were told to be afraid of a candidate 
who was “palling around with terrorists”.

In the healthcare debate we were told to be afraid 
of “death panels” that would “pull the plug on Grandma” 
(Sen. Charles Grassley, R-IA). Rep. Michelle 
Bachmann (R-MN) called on supporters to show up 
“armed and dangerous”. Nevada Republican senate 
candidate Sharron Angle referred to “2nd Amendment 
Remedies”. Arizona Republican Governor 
Jan Brewer reported (falsely) “our law enforcement 
agencies have found bodies in the desert . . . that have 
been beheaded”, while her state’s Sen. John McCain 
warned (falsely) Phoenix had become the “number 
two kidnapping capital of the world”.

The Republican opponent of a Tucson congresswoman 
invited supporters to “Get on Target for Victory 
in November Help remove Gabrielle Giffords 
from office Shoot a fully automatic M15 with Jesse 
Kelly”.

The problem is not so much the incendiary rhetoric, 
but that those who encourage it want to make it 
easy for nutcases to get guns.

Aside from the speculation, we know the shooter 
was armed with a Glock 19; a semi-automatic with 
high-capacity magazine. The 30-round clip was illegal 
from 1994 to 2004, when the Republican Congress 
allowed the national assault weapons ban (prohibiting 
magazines larger than 10 rounds) to expire.

Last year Gov. Brewer signed legislation allowing 
Arizonans to carry concealed weapons without 
a permit. It was perfectly legal for the gunman to 
approach the congresswoman at a public event with 
his fully-loaded Glock; he only broke the law once 
he pulled the trigger. We know he’d previously been 
rejected for enlistment in the Army and had been 
repeatedly kicked out of school because of mental 
health issues.

According to state figures, Arizona has over 
120,000 records of individuals with “disqualifying 
mental illnesses” that should go in the national background-
check database for gun purchases, but has to 
date submitted less than 5,000 for inclusion.

Our Rep. David Dreier expressed “hope this tragedy 
will play a role in diminishing some of the strident 
statements we have heard”. Rep. Drier is working to 
repeal the Affordable Care Act, not concerned about 
halting expansion of mental health resources to help 
prevent similar tragedies. In 1993 he opposed the 
“Brady” bill, not concerned about criminals arming 
themselves with no background checks required. 
He opposed the 1994 assault weapons ban, not concerned 
with Texas and Arizona becoming armories 
for Mexican drug cartels, or the consequences of easing 
the purchase of 30-round magazines. But he is 
concerned about “harsh words”.

A ban on 30-round magazines may not have 
averted the tragedy; a single bullet, a knife or a baseball 
bat can be deadly. But there wouldn’t have been 
those other victims; the federal judge, the grandparents, 
the young congressional staffer - and Christina 
Green. 

Christina was recently-elected class president and 
had already developed an interest in politics. She 
was included in the book “Faces of Hope”, which 
featured portraits of those born on 9/11/01. One 
of those 30 bullets went through her chest. She was 
nine years old.

In response to the shootings, Rep. Pete King (R-
NY) proposed banning guns within 1,000 ft. of a 
congress member. In response to the $9.5 million 
Republicans have gotten from the gun lobby over the 
past ten years, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) 
has announced his opposition.

Speaker Boehner is known for welling-up and getting 
all teary-eyed at most any occasion.

I wonder if he’ll ever shed a tear for Christina. 


Lots of ink has already been spilled discussing 
the awful tragedy in Tucson, and most of it 
has been the worst sort of journalism, attempting 
to blame the right, the Tea Party, talk radio, 
gun ownership, or Sarah Palin for what happened 
without a shred of evidence in support. What 
makes it even more sickening to watch and hear 
is the blatant hypocrisy on display. On August 3, 
2010, when a black man purposely killed 8 whites 
and himself credited liberal rhetoric about racist 
America as his motivation, the press told us to 
ignore those associations. When Major Hassan 
yelled “Allah akhubar” before he started his killing 
rampage at Fort Hood, the press again told 
us to not rush to judgment and associate a lone 
act with the Muslim faith. But when a clearly deranged 
loner shoots a Democratic congresswoman 
and kills several others, the press announces 
within 24 hours that this was what Tea Party, talk 
radio and Sarah Palin caused. Pathetic, manipulative 
and evil don’t even begin to describe the 
mainstream press, but that is not the point of my 
article today.

The point of my article, which the press coverage 
of the Tucson tragedy illustrates, is that truth 
doesn’t always win the day, and that is especially 
true in politics. What matters in politics is how 
well you present your case to the voting public, 
and in this liberals enjoy a key tactical advantage: 
the support of a liberal dominated mainstream 
press. I bring this up and am devoting the column 
to it because the upcoming debate over the 
size, scope and cost of the federal government 
will be filled with liberal attempts to prtray conservatives 
as insensitive and irresponsible for trying 
to scale back spending.

In essence liberals will try to do what they did 
when the 1994 Republican Congress stood firm 
against President Clinton and allowed the government 
to shut down for awhile as a natural 
consequence of massive deficit spending. Clinton 
was actually the one who shut down the government, 
but it was Republicans who took the 
blame. The tactics used back then will only be 
multiplied by the strategies liberals are using today 
as they try to paint conservatives as responsible 
for a lone nutter’s killings in Tucson. So let’s 
review some facts now, before the spin, lies and 
outright fabrications begin.

The Obama administration and the Democratic 
leaders in both the House and the Senate 
blatantly ignored the wishes of the electorate in 
2009 and early 2010 with the passing of Stimulus 
II and Obamacare. As a result, an authentic 
grass-roots reform movement sprung to life: the 
Tea Party. Americans of every race and socio-
economic level came together at rallies and ultimately 
in the 2010 election to hand liberals one 
of their worst defeats in decades. This occurred 
at the federal and state levels to such a degree that 
conservatives now control more governorships 
and state legislatures than at any time since 1928. 
Accordingly, they have a clear mandate and an 
absolute moral obligation to act on their promises 
of reducing the size of government and the 
amount of treasure it extracts from our pockets.

It is just this mandate and obligation that poses 
a mortal threat to the core of liberal beliefs. So 
conservatives are going to move to cut spending, 
and liberals are going to resist it. Liberals aren’t 
going to roll over; they aren’t simply going to 
accept conservative calls to cut this program or 
reduce that expenditure. They’re going to have 
to be forced into that, and the best way to force 
them is to let the legal limit on spending remain 
unchanged.

Now many of you may not be aware of the fact 
that there is a legal limit on spending. It’s called 
the national debt ceiling, and it serves as a legal 
brake on how much debt (which means how 
much spending) the government 
can undertake. When 
the government has borrowed 
all that is allowed under the 
debt ceiling, the government 
must stop borrowing money 
(which means it has to stop 
spending money) or Congress 
has to vote to increase the debt 
ceiling. Increasing the ceiling is exactly what the 
liberals want.

If the conservatives, who control Congress, refuse 
to increase the debt ceiling, they will force 
the liberals to come to the table and negotiate 
the true permanent spending cuts that have to be 
made. No person, company, state or country can 
continue to spend more than it takes in. As if 
that wasn’t logical enough, one only has to look 
at Greece to see the results of decades of excess 
spending.

This is not to say there won’t be any pain. There 
will be pain, but there’s going to be pain no matter 
what we do. The simple reality is that either the 
people who receive money from the government 
are going to have to cut back (pain) or the taxpayers 
are going to have to cut back (pain) in order 
to contribute more money in the form of taxes. 
There is no free lunch. In a rational world, our 
leaders would recognize that we have to match 
spending to revenue and they’d make every effort 
to identify the most wasteful areas of spending so 
as to minimize pain. By way of a quick example, 
you should cut spending on bridges-to-nowhere 
before you cut back spending on paying doctors 
who treat Medicare patients. Unfortunately, it is 
the opposite which will happen in a blatant attempt 
to increase the pain and scare the voters 
into backing down.

When conservatives refuse to increase the debt 
level and the administration is forced to shut 
something down, be prepared to see the most 
important and sensitive of services cut (or at 
least threats made that they will be cut). With 
the mainstream press firmly in support of robust 
government spending, be prepared to see lots of 
stories about how badly granny will suffer because 
social security is going to be cut, or how 
bad auntie ‘Em is going to be because she can’t get 
that hip replacement surgery because the doctor 
can’t get paid. These are exactly the types of stories 
that were aired in 1994. 

The press will not actually do any real investigations 
into whether proposed cuts are appropriate 
or just political gamesmanship on the part of 
liberals. There won’t be any stories about the billions 
in wasteful spending that have already been 
identified. That would undermine the momentum 
that they want to build to force conservatives 
to back down.

Let us hope that this time around we have a 
leadership team in the conservative party that is 
capable of effectively defending against the exaggerations, 
lies and hysteria which the liberals 
will trot out. Let us hope that they have the true 
strength of their convictions and will not cave in 
to this pressure, allowing spending to continue 
on it unsustainable upward trajectory. The rest 
of us need to be on guard against the manipulations 
and misdirections that we will read and see 
on a daily basis. If you think the press coverage 
of the Tucson shootings was obscene, wait to you 
see what will be deployed against those who just 
want us to live within our means.

About the author: Gregory J. Welborn is a freelance 
writer and has spoken to several civic and religious 
organizations on cultural and moral issues. 
He lives in the Los Angeles area with his wife and 3 
children and is active in the community. He can be 
reached at mailto:gregwelborn@earthlink.net

ANTHONY Portantino

 News From The Hill

Portantino joins Police Chiefs and Rank and File Police Officers 
in calling on California to ban the open display of firearms

AB 144 will ban the “Open Carry” of unloaded handguns


Sacramento – A sensible 
gun ban that should already 
be California law is being 
given a second chance. Assemblymember 
Anthony 
Portantino (D-La Cañada 
Flintridge) has introduced 
legislation to outlaw the 
“open carry” of unloaded 
handguns in California. The 
prior bill made it through the legislature last year, 
but failed to get to the Governor’s desk when the 
legislative session adjourned at midnight without 
completing its business.

“We have laws to license weapons in California 
and this bill will improve them. It keeps guns out 
of public places by individuals who are not properly 
and legally licensed to carry weapons,” explained 
Assemblymember Portantino. “Certainly, 
most folks would not want people walking down 
the grocery isle or sitting in a public park displaying 
weapons. There’s a proper place for firearms 
and having a proliferation of them strapped to 
hips is something that belongs in a Western movie, 
not Main Street, California.”

Because of the miscue at the end of the 2010 session, 
AB 1934 by former Assemblymember Lori 
Saldaña did not make it to the Governor’s desk. 
This oversight means that Californians may walk 
into a grocery store carrying an unloaded weapon 
on one hip and the bullets on the other. After seeing 
a rise in these types of needless public displays, 
law enforcement officials sought the ban on this 
open display of firearms. Portantino took up the 
cause and has worked with law enforcement to re-
introduce the “open carry” ban.

San Mateo Police Chief Susan Manheimer, President 
of the California Police Chiefs Association 
explains why her group is endorsing Portantino’s 
AB 144. “The California Police Chiefs Association 
is strongly in support of Assembly Member 
Portantino’s open-carry bill. The open display of 
firearms in crowded public places creates very real 
public safety issues – both for the public and for 
police officers. This is a good-sense public safety 
bill and we are committed to securing its passage.”

Portantino’s bill, AB 144, which was introduced 
Thursday, makes it illegal to carry an unloaded 
handgun in any public place or street. Law enforcement 
personnel are exempt as are hunters 
and others carrying unloaded weapons under 
specified licensed circumstances.

“PORAC members are committed to keeping 
our communities safe, and this practice wastes a 
huge amount of law enforcement officers’ time. 
These people work in groups and they are trained 
on how to confront peace officers. It is scary for 
our neighborhoods and businesses,” said Lt. Ron 
Cottingham, President of the Peace Officers Research 
Association of California, PORAC. “It is 
not safe, and I fear a horrible accident could happen 
if something is not done about it. That is why 
PORAC supports AB 144.”

California is one of many states that allow so-
called “open carry” which gives gun owners the 
right to display weapons, though in California 
those guns must be unloaded. Carrying loaded 
firearms in public is already against the law in 
California. The dispute came to a head last year 
when gun enthusiasts began showing up in coffee 
shops and public beaches with unloaded guns 
strapped to their hips. 

“Average Californians understand police officers 
displaying loaded weapons, they understand 
hunters, and they even understand those 
folks who are legally licensed to a carry a weapon. 
What they don’t want is a proliferation of public 
displays of weapons for no purpose. It’s imperative 
that the public safety of our families and our 
neighbors’ families is protected. It only takes a 
few seconds to load and fire. This bill is a sensible 
public safety protection that will make such 
an occurrence less likely in our neighborhoods,” 
concluded Portantino.

Letter To The Editor

Re: Destruction Of The Trees in Arcadia

Dear Editor:

Simply, a quote from naturalist, John Muir...

 

“God has cared for these trees, saved them from drought, disease, avalanches and a thousand 
tempests and floods, bur He cannot save them from fools.”

 ~John Muir~

Pat Birdsall, Sierra Madre