Politics by Pete_Borden
Let’s look at “Income Equality.”
February 17, 2014 05:50 PM | 10022 views | 0 0 comments | 764 764 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink

view as list
Attack on Neal Boortz, tasteless and cowardly
by Pete_Borden
January 21, 2013 10:31 AM | 1285 views | 3 3 comments | 19 19 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink
Foley’s column on Friday, January 18, 2013, entitled “Boortz was a boring boor”, came across as a thinly disguised cry for attention, a column written for no purpose.  In his pathetic attempt at putting down Neal Boortz, Foley has demonstrated a total lack of knowledge about the man, his work and, most of all, his listeners.

    

To be certain, Boortz was not always right, seldom tactful and, at times, was downright mean, but to call him “boring” is simply inane.  The man had a following of 4.25 million listeners, and was named one of the top 25 Top Influential Talk Show Hosts.  Boring people do not achieve that kind of success.

    

Foley amplifies his ignorance by inferring that over 4 million Boortz listeners do not think for themselves, are willfully ignorant, delusional, racist or paranoid.  Amazingly, those are the same terms Kevin frequently employs to describe everyone who disagrees with his rants. To compound the ludicrous and self deluding attempts at downgrading Boortz’s listeners, he infers they are “desperate for someone to affirm their deepest, darkest fears and prejudices.

    

In his ill-fated attempt at character assassination, Foley resorts to a series of quotes, the source of which he says is an organization called Media Matters.  The following description is from their website.

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not for profit, 501(c)(3), progressive research and  information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing and correcting conservative misinformation in the U. S. media.

With that glowing recommendation, would anyone like to venture a guess as to their objectivity?  It is probably somewhere on a par with Mr. Foley’s record of the same.  His collection of “out of context” quotes does less damage to the reputation of Mr. Boortz than to that of the writer who chooses to list them.

In fact, it appears that Media Matters is dedicated to doing the opposite of what Mr. Foley does, as a public relations executive.  His job is to “modify” and “filter” the facts just enough so that they still have a modicum of truth, but, in the process, make Mr. Foley’s client look like an Eagle Scout, even though he might, in reality, be a money launderer or a philandering politician.  Media Matters is dedicated to using the same process, to make conservatives look bad.  

Mr. Foley was indeed wise to wait until Boortz was no longer able to respond, to carry out his petty attack. Had he chosen to do so 30 days ago, Boortz would surely have burned him at the stake, figuratively speaking, of course, on his radio show.

One has to wonder, if Foley is so opposed to Boortz and his views, why he waited forty years to say something,. I am reminded of a time, years ago, when one of my friends was threatened by another man.  After the guy finished telling Robert how badly he was going to whip him, Robert responded, “It must be fear that’s holding you back.”  Could that be the answer to Foley’s forty years of silence about Neal Boortz?

Mr. Foley states he stopped listening to Boortz because he was always “bottom fishing”.  I submit that Mr. Foley’s column is a prime example of “bottom feeding.”  It was a direct attempt at character assassination, with no purpose. Even if everything he said about Boortz is true, what is the reason for saying it now?  The “offender” is off the air, and gone to Florida. Nothing will be accomplished with this attack, except that it will make Foley look petty and foolish.
comments (3)
view/post comments
Lib in Cobb
|
January 23, 2013
@Kevin: Since I have never listened to Boortz for longer than 15 seconds from I had no idea he was leaving until I read it here. We have something else to be grateful for, Obama's second term and Boortz leaving.

Did you ever wonder why….?
by Pete_Borden
January 10, 2013 10:09 AM | 2072 views | 13 13 comments | 18 18 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink
Did you ever wonder why the gun control advocates refuse to acknowledge the huge body of scientific studies showing a direct cause and effect relationship between violent media (TV shows, movies, video games, children’s cartoons) and violent behavior?  Is it because of the large support the President, and the communications media, get from the entertainment media?

Did you ever wonder why the media is so intent upon pushing the gun control agenda of this administration even to the extent of ignoring all evidence of other causes of violent behavior?

Did you ever wonder what will be the reaction of the 50 millions gun owners in this country when this administration directly attacks the Second Amendment?

Did you ever wonder why President Obama thinks he can just dismiss the Second Amendment by writing an Executive Order?  Does he really think he was elected dictator instead of President?

Did you ever wonder why the rush to ban guns for everybody, when the crimes are committed by criminals, nor law abiding gun owners?   A half a hundred people commit crimes with guns and the gun control advocates want to punish 50 million innocent people for it.

Did you ever wonder how the gun control advocates plan to deal with the fact that those bent on committing crimes with guns will not pay one bit of attention to their silly gun ban laws?

Did you ever wonder if the gun control advocates realize that if we give up our guns, we will be defenseless against a growing number of armed criminals, thugs and hoodlums?

Did you ever wonder if a .38 in the hand is more effective than a cop on the phone, in stopping someone intent on doing you harm?

Did you ever wonder why the mainstream media never reported on the 14 Mexican teens reportedly  gunned down at a birthday party, some with weapons given the killers by President Obama’s ill conceived Fast and Furious Program?

Did you ever wonder why President Obama is giving guns to the Mexican drug cartels, planes to Egypt and arms to Libya, but wants to disarm American citizens?

Did you ever wonder why an armed person is called a citizen and an unarmed person is called a subject?  Give up your weapons and you won’t have to wonder why any more.

Did you ever wonder why, if just passing a law is going to get guns off the street, we don’t apply the same logic to alcohol, drugs, and illegal aliens?  Oh, yeah, we did that with alcohol. It was called prohibition and gave birth to modern organized crime syndicates.  We have law against drugs, but the streets are full of them and drug addiction is at an epidemic stage.  We have .laws against illegal aliens, but we have about 15 millions of them in this country right now.

Did you ever wonder why the gun control advocates are loath to refer to the Columbine shootings in their mad rush to ban “assault weapons?”  The Columbine shootings were carried out with three handguns and two shotguns, but only one rifle, not by responsible gun owners, but by a couple of psychotic students, who  planted improvised explosive devices in the cafeteria, which, if they had exploded would have killed virtually everyone in the cafeteria. They also planted explosive devices in their own cars, timed to explode and kill first responders.  Nope, the full facts on Columbine would not lend much support to their bull headed charge to ban rifles.

Did you ever wonder why the most outspoken gun control advocates are people who never served in the military, have led what we call sheltered lives, have never been called upon to defend anything requiring force, are somewhat ignorant of weaponry and might even be afraid of guns?.

Did you ever wonder why some of the most vociferous proponents of gun control are not willing to discus the real issue, not willing to discuss alternatives such as banning high capacity magazines, instead of rifles? Could it be that they are being paid by the gun control lobby to sway public opinion, and are only in it for the money?

Just a few things to wonder about, besides why our paychecks are suddenly smaller, and why Benghazi is suddenly out of the news, with no real answers yet.

comments (13)
view/post comments
Lib in Cobb
|
January 16, 2013
George: You are comparing Kennesaw to NYC and Chicago. Just plain stupid. Do you recall the mass murder/shooting in Kennesaw just three years ago? That shooting took place within a gun free school zone. I guess Jesse James Warren (the shooter) did not see the signs.

The current patchwork of gun control laws in the US do not work. A national gun control program is needed so people who want to buy an assault weapon can't buy one in a neighboring state. No one needs and assault weapon, rifle or pistol.

It would help your cause if you stopped using stupid comparisons.

Gun control advocates, including Kevin Foley, care little for facts
by Pete_Borden
January 07, 2013 12:48 PM | 1636 views | 7 7 comments | 17 17 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink
In his column, “Public Safety, gun safety not mutually exclusive”, appearing January 4th, MDJ columnist has broken his own record at misrepresenting the facts. 
In the first paragraph has says that NRA president Wayne LaPierre told Americans to buy more guns. He did not make any such statement.  Foley than goes on to say “that just happens to be the products sold by the companies his outfit represents.”  The NRA represents America’s gun owners, not gun manufacturers.
In the second paragraph, he says that LaPierre called for arming every teacher. That is another blatant untruth.  At no time did he advocate arming every teacher.  What he did advocate was putting trained, armed guards in every school.  Something that President Clinton started, though not on such a grand scale.  Why do you think private schools have been exempt from Columbine, or Sandy Hook type shootings?  They are all guarded and secured, just the same as the private school to which President Obama sends his children.
In the third paragraph,. He engages in a little melodrama intended to make LaPierre look like ghoul.  He alludes to LaPierre making his first statement “as the babies of Sandy hook were being laid to rest”:  Sorry, Kevin, but LaPierre waited a respectful 9 days after the tragedy before making his statement, unlike the gun control crowd, who, like a bunch of vultures, did not even wait 9 hours, much less 9 days, before they verbally hung up the bodies of the 20 babies and pointed to them as proof that we must abolish the 2nd Amendment. 
His next two paragraphs address public safety, as if it were a given that outlawing guns would make the public safe.  Of course, anybody with reasoning power greater than that of a fence post knows that is not true.
Try this one on for size, by the way, Kevin.  According to the FBI, in 2011, there were 35% more murders committed with hammers, than with rifles.  Yet, what is it you want to outlaw? Rifles isn’t it?   Why not hammers?  Close down the hammer department at Home Depot.
Public safety discussions do not end where the topic of guns begins. It ends when you advocate surrendering liberty for a false sense of safety.  Our founding fathers warned us about that repeatedly.
Foley makes the erroneous statement that you can walk into almost any gun show and buy “assault weapons”, high capacity magazines and ammunition, no questions asked.  I will not dignify that by calling it an untruth. I will call it what it is. It is a bald faced lie.  Dealers at gun shows are bound by the same regulations requiring background checks, as they are when they are in their places of business.  Since Foley is only parroting something he has heard, I have no way of knowing whether he is aware of that or not.  But, I repeat, the statement is a lie.
Foley, Charles Gregory, is at this time a private citizen and his inane ravings do not, in any way, reflect the belief of most sane people. As to the Second Amendment, it does recognize our unfettered access to weapons.  The Second Amendment has been attacked in court many times and is still just as pristine as the day our founding fathers wrote it, without reservation, time limit or expiration date.
BTW, how many instances of a good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun will it take to convince you?  It’s not a “wild west” thing, it is a fact. 
Your fantasies regarding teachers and people in church are just that. Fantasies, concocted to prove your point. They have no basis in fact. Nobody is advocating arming all the teachers, so your scenario of a gunman killing the teacher first is pure fantasy.  You reckon one armed member of the congregation could take out a shooter, but not before some people died.  That may be true, but is that not better than all the people being killed?  Without a gun, the killer could always toss in a stick of dynamite, or a firebomb and not risk getting shot at all.  Your fantasy scenario is invalid. 
You make a lot of noise about sensible, well thought out laws relating to firearms. We already have such, and you are not satisfied.  
What you are ignoring is the fact that people who intend to use guns for illegal purposes do not care about the law, whether it is well thought out or not.   What you are advocating is restricting the 2nd Amendment rights of over 3 million people for a false sense of safety.
Hammers and hand guns are used for killing far more often than rifles.  A third of all mass killings are accomplished without guns.  The first recorded murder in history was done before guns were ever invented.  Extremely strict guns laws in Chicago did not stop 440 school children from being shot, 62 of them fatally, in 2011. Chicago has an assault weapons ban. So does Connecticut. 
The children of Sandy Hook were not killed by the 2nd Amendment.  They were killed by a crazed maniac, who murdered his own mother to gain illegal possession of legal weapons. .Had he not been able to do that, he would have found another way to accomplish what he set out to do. Many have done so in the past.  Remember Timothy McVeigh?  He had a much higher body count without firing a single shot.
comments (7)
view/post comments
Off Balance
|
January 10, 2013
from cato:

2. Gun shows are responsible for a large number of firearms falling into the hands of criminals.

"False. Contrary to President Clinton’s claims, there is no “gun show loophole.” All commercial arms dealers at gun shows must run background checks, and the only people exempt from them are the small number of non-commercial sellers. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, at most 2 percent of guns used by criminals are purchased at gun shows, and most of those were purchased legally by people who passed background checks."

Kevin Foley, put it all into context, or none
by Pete_Borden
January 03, 2013 01:27 PM | 1541 views | 10 10 comments | 11 11 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink

Kevin Foley’s column, entitled “Needed: ‘Well-regulated militia’ — and guns”, which appeared 12-28-12, is indicative of the lengths to which the gun control advocates will go, in order to persuade you to abdicate your rights.

Foley erroneously, alludes that the founding fathers were so dense that they thought we would still be armed with muskets 200 years later; that the development of weaponry had reached its final stage, in 1783.  His statement that the 2nd amendment must be examined in that context is so misguided as to make it almost laughable.  Suppose we examined all the First Amendment in the same manner. 

Since the founding fathers had no idea that we would have so many religions to choose from, we must limit our choice to those in existence in 1783. They number a half dozen or so. No Church of Christ, No Seventh Day Adventist, No Jehovah’s’ Witnesses, No Muslims, etc.

The founding fathers could not have possibly conceived of the mass communication media we currently enjoy. Therefore, freedom of the press must be in accordance with what they did know.  Newspaper must, forthwith, be published on flatbed letter presses. No electrically powered presses can be used.  Radio, television and the internet are no longer allowed. After all, they did not exist in 1783.

As far as freedom of speech is concerned, it must be practiced as it was in the days of the founding fathers.  Orating from a soapbox in the town square is permissible. Spouting off on radio, television or the internet is not allowed.  Written material must be produced by quill pen and ink.  No mechanical copying may be done.  Publication must be by the same means allowed for the production of newspapers.

That all sounds pretty silly. Right?  No sillier than Foley’s insistence that we apply to the 2nd amendment all the restrictions of that which was known at the time.

Indeed the Constitution of the United States is a living document, the law of the land. The founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they put the 2nd amendment in there.  They had just fought a .long and bitter war against a tyrannical government. They were also aware that any government could, at any time, become a tyrannical government.  The 2nd Amendment is in place in case that happens.  It is not for deer hunters and target shooters, but for those who would defend their liberty, even unto death.

Do not be misled by the tricks and ruses of the gun control advocates. Their ultimate goal, regardless of what they may profess, is to totally disarm the citizenry, thereby making us subjects, and not citizens.

 

comments (10)
view/post comments
Pete Borden
|
January 07, 2013
Kevin, first of lal I would ask that you document your inference that virtually every police chief and and public safety official has attacked the 2nd amendment.

Second, I have had close relatives who were victims of violent crimes. It did not cause me to decide that the Constitution as invalid.

As long as all the gun control advocates can focus on is eroding the freedom for which many have given their lives, and refuse to even look at the possibility that there are are other factors to blame, besides inanimate objects incapable of any action on their own, and that ther are better measures to solve the problem. I will continue to oppose you.


More gun control legislation is not the answer
by Pete_Borden
December 28, 2012 10:14 AM | 1420 views | 13 13 comments | 13 13 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink
What do the following have in common? Poison gas, knives, handguns, dynamite,

ammonium nitrate and motor fuel, semi-automatic weapons, surgical instruments, arson, military looking automatic rifles, box cutters, blunt objects, airplanes, unmanned drones?   Answer, they have all been used as weapons in mass killings within the past eighteen years. How many of the items does the government propose banning? The answer is, only one, military looking automatic rifles.

How many mass killing do NOT involve firearms at all. The answer is one third of them. Among those mass killings utilizing guns, what is the most often used?  The handgun is the most used gun in mass killings.

For what percentage of the nation’s homicides do mass killings account?  The answer is around 1 percent. So, if a ban resulted in stopping any mass killing, it would be a miniscule percentage of the larger problem.

Given the above, all of which is documentable by a Google search of “Weapons used in mass killings”, why is the government dead set on banning that which they incorrectly term as “assault weapons?”

Will such a ban stop mass killings? No it will not!  There are dozens of other weapons, not including firearms, which are equally as effective.

Will it reduce the body count in such killings?  Again, the answer is no.  The shooter at Sandy Hook carried a Glock automatic pistol. Armed with that and preloaded clips, he could have accomplished his carnage in about the same time. 

In Chicago, with very strict gun control laws, 62 school children were murdered last year. Connecticut has some of the most stringent gun control regulations in the country, yet those regulations did not stop the Sandy Hook massacre. BOTH CHICAGO AND CONNECTICUT HAVE ASSAULT WEAPONS BANS.  So much for gun control!

Why, then, the mad push to ban certain firearms?  Do not be fooled.   It is not about the “assault weapons”.  It is about eroding the Second Amendment, a little at a time. The gun control lobby knows it cannot attack the Second Amendment head-on They know that would cause a nationwide uprising, the likes of which has not been seen by anyone living today.  So, their only path to the ultimate goal of disarming the American citizenry is to chip away slowly.  Today, the “assault weapons”, tomorrow semi-automatic rifles, etc until there is nothing left!   Then, we are not citizens, we are subjects.

The gun control lobby lives and thrives on such tragedies as the Sandy Hook shooting, because they give them ammunition with which to advance their cause of disarming American citizens.

In the weeks to come, they will be spreading a lot of disinformation, probably supported locally by some MDJ columnists including Kevin Foley.  Some of the misinformation they will spread is already being spread by the nationwide gun control shouters.

  1. Banning “assault weapons” will stop, or greatly reduce, mass killings.  Wrong.  People bent on killing do not need assault weapons, as has been demonstrated time after time.
  2. The Second Amendment applies only to weapons available at the time it was written.  Wrong. It does not limit the type of arms we can keep and bear.
  3. The Second Amendment applies only to militia.  Wrong. It confirms that a “well regulated militia” is necessary, but it says the “right of the people”, not the militia, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon.
  4. The Second Amendment only applies to hunters.  Wrong. The Second Amendment is in place to confirm the rights of citizens to protect themselves against foreign invasion, or internal tyranny. 
  5. The Second Amendment does not give us the right to own weapons. That is correct.  It does not “give” us the right. We are born with the right.  It CONFIRMS that right.  Government does not grant rights. Government can only confirm, try to limit or deny the rights with which we were “endowed by our creator”.
  6. People do not need “assault weapons.”  Such is a judgment without basis in fact, because of the nebulous meaning of the word “assault weapons”.  As has been demonstrated, a box cutter, or a kitchen knife, can be an effective “assault weapon”.  Would you ban box cutters, or cutlery?  While it is true that nobody needs a rapid fire weapon to shoot a deer, the right to keep and bear arms is not about shooting deer.
Do not be misled into surrendering your liberty.  As Ben Franklin said, ”If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.”
comments (13)
view/post comments
Lib in Cobb
|
January 04, 2013
@DA: I will take back what I said about you arriving at partial sanity. You are again back to where you started involving identities.

Please don't go away, we need the comic relief.

page 1 ..
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides