I found this Interesting
wish I could say enjoyable
An Internet Publication for Real Americans Last Roundup: 01/17/01 18:52:52
Caveat Ashcroft – and other Republican Ruminations
© 2001 by Mark and Tina Terry - Published: 01.16.01
Prior to the election, we took the time to copy and paste side-by-side, some of the "gun policies" of both Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore, taken directly from their respective websites; the School Marm then e-mailed this comparison out to numerous recipients. In our message, we noted that we could see little difference between the published Second Amendment policies of the Republican and Democrat candidates. We received both positive and negative feedback, the most negative at the time being an ad hominum assault that we must be "deaf, dumb and blind" if we could not see the difference in the gun control policies of Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore, based upon their records.
In support of the statement that we suffered from such sensory deficits, the author pointed out to us that, as Governor of Texas, George W. Bush had passed a law permitting Texas citizens (who applied for a permit, went through state-sanctioned training, SSN disclosure and fingerprinting, and who then paid a fee for a license,) the "right" to bear (concealed) arms.
Mr. Bush's web site stated that Mr. Bush also "supports extending the current ban on high-capacity ammunition clips to include those imported from foreign countries." Mr. Bush also helped to create in Texas Klebold-and-Harris victim-disarmament zones by signing legislation prohibiting weapons within 300 feet of a school and making a violation of the weapon-free zone a felony.
Notwithstanding Mr. Bush's published position regarding gun-free felony
zones and "ammunition clip" control, our detractor suggested that we should be able to see how Bush's record was somehow superior to the presidential candidate of a party whose attorney general says the Second Amendment "is meaningless," and that it protects no individual right to keep and bear arms. (See information on U.S. v. Emerson at
http://www.guntruths.com/Resource/us_v_emerson.htm and
http://www.potomac-inc.org/yass.html)
Nevertheless, we actually believed for a while that a Bush presidency would trample the Bill of Rights at a slightly slower rate than a Gore presidency.
Now, Mr. Bush has nominated John Ashcroft to head the Department of Justice - an appointment that many conservatives are trying to sell us as boding well for gun owners if this nomination is approved.
Many folks from the Left oppose the Ashcroft nomination. In an Internet bulletin dated 1/12/01, released from the National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com) and entitled "Follow the Money," John J. Miller and Ramesh Ponnuru reveal how many who oppose Ashcroft’s nomination are wards of the State, and that they receive about $45 million annually in tax dollars.
However, if one is pro-Bill of Rights, and most particularly pro-Second Amendment, John Ashcroft's nomination poses a major problem, since his position on the War On Some Drugs is close to being downright fascist.
DRCNet, an organization devoted to stopping the unconstitutional War On Some Drugs, has published (http://www.stopjohnashcroft.org/) a thorough and detailed record of John Ashcroft’s abysmal record concerning the War On Some Drugs. Found at the same site is a petition to stop Ashcroft’s nomination.
DCRNet states: "If drug policy and related Constitutional issues are the criteria, there is no question that John Ashcroft has one of the worst records on Capitol Hill. As Senator, John Ashcroft sponsored a bill that would have simultaneously violated the spirit if not the letter of both the 1st and 4th amendments to the US Constitution: the "Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act" would have criminalized certain drug- and drug policy-related discussions on the Internet, and would have allowed police to conduct secret searches of homes, with the residents never being informed before or after that the police were there. Indeed, in his six years in the Senate, Ashcroft proposed amendments to the Constitution a full seven times, including an amendment to make it easier to amend the Constitution… We consider the mandatory minimum sentences that John Ashcroft so enthusiastically supports to be gross violations of human rights; and we deplore his apparent lack of allegiance to the spirit of the US Constitution that he was sworn to uphold. That Constitution is the highest law of the land, a law which is in part intended to place restrains on the forces that the Attorney General directs. This is not a matter of liberal vs. conservative or anti-crime or "pro-criminal," as the Senator
has labeled some of his opponents. This is a matter of sanity in the criminal justice system and respect for basic Constitution rights."
The fact is, if Mr. Ashcroft had had his way regarding the "Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act," simply e-mailing information about the Drug War could have become a prosecutable offense. And because of Mr. Ashcroft’s mandatory sentencing policies, hundreds of thousands of non-violent marijuana users are incarcerated in federal prisons for 10 year mandatory sentences – while rapists, murderers and other violent criminals often receive lesser sentences.
There are more people incarcerated in America because of mandatory sentencing of non-violent drug users than there is jail space - so Ashcroft's position is, by default, that violent criminals should be released to accommodate more drug users. This position seems ultimately to be more supportive of a "pro-criminal stance" than an anti-criminal one.
It is obvious to us that the War On Some Drugs has steeply and frighteningly escalated the War on Guns and the War on the Bill of Rights, particularly the assault on the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The evidence supporting this is all around us.
Anyone who treasures his or her individual rights needs to examine Mr. Ashcroft's position on all issues. In examining some of his positions, we find Mr. Ashcroft to be way too much like Übermoron Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey for our comfort.
While Mr. Ashcroft is purportedly a devout Christian, he apparently doesn't care to resolve civil asset forfeiture issues against the Commandment which directs: "Thou shalt not steal." Neither does he recognize that designating as illegal growing or even possessing a plant that God created - a plant that the Founding Fathers openly valued and employed for its many uses - is a curious act for a Christian. Supporting such harsh punishment as mandatory 10-year sentences and secret searches and seizures for people suspected of growing or possessing this plant is, in our opinion, very un-Christian.
We understand that this message may not be popular amongst those of our readers who are both Christian and pro-Second Amendment. However, one needs to keep in mind that Ashcroft is rated C- by Gun Owners of America.
If this is the "champion of the gun rights movement," then Heaven help us all. And if he is confirmed as Attorney General, then we can expect the War On Some Drugs and the accompanying dismantling of The Bill of Rights to escalate steeply, and for the Constitution to take yet more abuse - this time from the Right instead of the Left. Trading in Janet Reno for John Ashcroft appears to us to be kind of like trading in Stalin for Hitler.
In fact, as we write this, the DEA has officially announced that it intends to ban most hemp products in the United States, including food made from sterile (non-psychoactive) hemp seeds and hemp-based personal care products, such as shampoos and lip balms.
Those who are arrested for possessing hemp-based shampoo, soap or lip balm will face up to a year in federal prison and a $10,000 fine. Such is the dangerous fanaticism of the Executive branch "anti-drug" agency that John Ashcroft, if confirmed, would be supporting, and from his record, it sounds as if he'd do so eagerly.
With over 700,000 arrests every year in the U.S. for marijuana offenses, imagine the strain on our legal system of hundreds of thousands of additional arrests resulting from the illegal possession of non-psychoactive personal care products.
Ashcroft’s nomination does not exist in a vacuum. One must consider it synergistically, along with the Bush-proposed heads of other agencies, particularly those concerned with law enforcement.
Along with proposing Ashcroft for Attorney General, Mr. Bush has also asked Louis Freeh to remain as the Director of the FBI - the main enforcement arm of the Department of Justice.
During Mr. Freeh's interview for the position of FBI director, Freeh told Senator Howard Metzenbaum that he applauded the senator's work to ban "military-style semiautomatic assault weapons." Freeh added, "The strongest piece of gun legislation that you pass, I would enforce diligently, completely, and exhaustively." Freeh then told the Senators that it would be inappropriate for him to lobby for any laws. No sooner was this "fact" out of his mouth then he went on to say that he "would not disagree or set aside the recommendation of my predecessor" in recommending the passage of strict gun-control legislation, including bans on guns and ammunition.
Mr. Freeh, who claimed that the "FBI and I were victimized" by the White House, when the FBI unlawfully turned over confidential personnel files to White House officials, also stated: "The American people must be willing to give up a degree of personal privacy in exchange for safety and security."
While Director Freeh may have a history of being at odds with Janet Reno and the White House, and may, upon occasion, talk out of both sides of his mouth, the one thing that Freeh, Reno, Clinton – and now apparently Ashcroft - have in common is a clear contempt for the Bill of Rights.
Another fact that bodes ill for individual liberty is this: the FBI under Mr. Freeh has increased in size by 5000 more personnel since Mr. Freeh took charge. This is the same agency that, while publicly protesting the proposed release of convicted FBI-agent-killer Leonard Peltier, has closed ranks to protect FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi from any punishment for his killing of civilian, armed-with-an-infant Vicky Weaver at Ruby Ridge. This is also the same agency that has a hostage-rescue team that somehow manages to leave no survivors whenever it’s deployed.
The Republican-controlled Congress also recently approved a $773 million budget for the BATF - about double the amount the agency received in the year before the BAT-men attacked the Branch Davidians in 1993. BATF’s 2001 budget will allow for nearly 5,000 agents, and other personnel. Congress has also approved an additional $83 million for a new BAT-man headquarters.
Meanwhile, Mr. Bush is appointing Republicans (and one Democrat) to cabinet positions to assume power over the plethora of unconstitutional alphabet-soup agencies. These unconstitutional agencies oversee and enforce everything from laws protecting the Great Spotted Suck Toad, (thanks, Patricia Neill!) to seizing cars, homes and paychecks to fund the agencies that write, promote and enforce Spotted-Suck-Toad-protection regulations.
Remember the 104th Congress' Republican pledge to reduce funding and eliminate some of these agencies? Not only do all of the agencies still exist, but the funding for every one of them has increased substantially. Only one Republican appointee has turned down a leadership position with respect to the operation of these agencies, despite there being no constitutional authority for the existence of any of these agencies, let alone most of the Federal laws that they enforce.
It would have been a relief to see at least one Republican nominee make a public statement that he would turn down such an appointment on the basis of there being no constitutional authority for the existence of said agency.
While it is fashionable in pro-Second Amendment circles to bash liberals for their gun-control inclinations, one must not forget that the records of many Republicans regarding gun control is little, if any better than most liberals. Richard Poe cites to the abominable record of noteworthy Republicans Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Richard Nixon, Rudolph Giuliani and George Pataki: see
http://www.frontpagemag.com/editors_note/default.htm.
While there seems to be a great deal of relief and glee in gun-rights circles regarding the election of a Republican President, to those of us who don’t see the world through Republican-colored glasses, prospects for the future of the Bill of Rights appear both dim and grim.
And we’re sick to death of the Orwellian "Animal Farm"-type special treatment accorded to legislators of both major parties and their kin when they are caught with illegal drugs.
Despite Mr. Ashcroft's McCaffrey-esque fanaticism on mandatory sentencing and attempting to pass laws grossly abridging the First and Fourth Amendments, as well as his draconian approach to marijuana, it seems that, when it comes to pot crimes, blood is definitely thicker than equal justice for all.
While John Ashcroft was the oh-so-tough-on-drugs governor of Missouri, his nephew, Alex Ashcroft, who had been caught growing 60 marijuana plants, and who could have gone to federal prison for 10 years under Uncle John’s beloved mandatory sentencing plan, was instead tried in state court, and received only probation; see:
http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/01/12/ashcroft_nephew/index.html
This kind of blatant hypocrisy is something we grew to expect from the Clinton administration. To see it rear its ugly head in the Bush regime – even before Bush’s inauguration – is disappointing and depressing.
While we appreciate the enthusiasm of all those who are glad to be rid of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno (as are we), we are tired of being told to blindly and obediently support the nomination of someone whose record shows that he will continue the wanton tradition of trampling of the Constitution, this time with a rightest instead of a leftest vendetta against individual rights.
To sign a petition against the Ashcroft nomination, go to
http://www.stopjohnashcroft.org/
To send us ad hominum assaults and insults, e-mail us at biteme@sierratimes.com
Articles & Editorials
We receive numerous requests to forward Sierra Times articles and editorials to other news outlets, or to publish them on websites.
Permission granted, as long as you include the name of our site, the author, and our URL:
http://www.SierraTimes.com
All Sierra Times
news reports, and all editorials are
© 2001 SierraTimes.com
(unless otherwise noted)
SierraTimes.com™
A Subsidiary of
J.J. Johnson
Enterprises, Inc.
1970 N. Leslie
Suite 204
Pahrump, NV 89060
Office: 775.727.0627
Fax: 413.581.5806
A Registered Nevada Corporation
© 2001 SierraTimes.com - All rights Reserved To The TOP
News & Opinion: Home - Sierra News - News Digest - Editorials - Money - Nuggets - Breaking News - Hearthside
Interaction: Mailbag - Chat - Message Board - Subscribe - Help Desk - Health - Radio - Site Problems - Search
Shop & Browse: Classifieds - Advertising - Rebel Shack - Tradin' Post- Cracking The Liberty Bell
An Internet Publication for Real Americans © 2000 SierraTimes.com - All rights Reserved
@)