Blood Libel

You might excuse Palin's use of this term based on her celebrated ignorance, but we need to be aware that the use of Blood libel was historically used to encourage the hatred of Jews.

(LOS ANGELES) - I am no conspiracy theorist but Cong. Giffords is the first Jewish Congresswoman from Arizona, and her alleged assassin apparently had a copy of Mien Kampf in his belongings.

Tonight, Sarah Palin used the term Blood Liable in her video speech. This after Palin's website urged followers to take out Congresswomen Giffords (and other Democrats) using rifle target-scope cross-hairs.

American-Jewry are not used to the type of persecution suffered by our European-Jewish counterparts. However, Jews and Gentiles should be concerned about the increased use of hate speech.

You might excuse Palin's use of this term based on her celebrated ignorance. But we need to be aware that the use by Palin of this term was historically used to encourage the hatred of Jews.

It is time for us to wake up about the increased use of hate speech, and the need to protect ourselves against it's consequences. Most civilized states such as Canada have enacted hate speech protections:

Blood libel (also blood accusation) refers to a false accusation or claim that religious minorities, almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays. Historically, these claims have–alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration–been a major theme in European persecution of Jews^[1].

The libels typically allege that Jews require human blood for the baking of matzos for Passover. The accusations often assert that the blood of Christian children is especially coveted, and historically blood libel claims have often been made to account for otherwise unexplained deaths of children. In some cases, the alleged victim of human sacrifice has become venerated as a martyr, a holy figure around whom a martyr cult might arise. A few of these have been even canonized as saints, like Gavriil Belostoksky.

In Jewish lore, blood libels were the impetus for the creation in the 16th century of the Golem of Prague by Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel. Many popes have either directly or indirectly condemned the blood accusation, and no pope has ever sanctioned it. These libels have persisted among some segments of Christians to the present time.

The earlier stories describe only the torture and agony of the victim and suggest that the child's death was the sole purpose of the ritual. Over time and as the libel proliferated, the focus shifted to the supposed need to collect the victim's blood for mystical purposes.

The story of William of Norwich (d. 1144) is the first case of alleged ritual murder that led to widespread persecutions. It does not mention the collection of William's blood nor of any ritual purpose to the alleged ritual murder. In the story of Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln (d. 1255) it was said that after the boy was dead, his body was removed from the cross and laid on a table. His belly was cut open and his entrails removed for some occult purpose, such as a divination ritual. In the story of Simon of Trent (d. 1475) it was highly stressed how the boy was held over a large bowl so all his blood could be collected^[3].

Dr. William K. Barth, a graduate of the University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, is a lawyer who researches the politics of minority rights. Dr. Barthʼs doctoral thesis entitled On Cultural Rights: The Equality of Nations and the Minority Legal Tradition, was recently published by Martinus Nijhoff.

Prior to initiating his research in Oxford, Dr. Barth served as a senior lawyer for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. He received his Master of Public Administration Degree from Harvard Universityʼs John F. Kennedy School of Government (ʼ86) and his Juris Doctor from Loyola University School of Law (ʼ79). He has been a member of the California State Bar in good standing since 1979.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Gerald Thornberg February 5, 2011 9:51 am (Pacific time)

High-capacity mags put a predator like Loughner at a disadvantage because they are so long, unwieldy and difficult to conceal. This may be why the Tucson shooting appears to be the first spree killing involving a high-capacity magazine. It would have been easier for Loughner to bring two guns. On the other hand, for a homeowner who is a poor marksman, a large-capacity clip could be a lifesaver. But after every multiple murder, gungrabbers come up with some crackpot idea to "do something" that invariably involves infringing on some aspect of our Second Amendment rights. There's only one policy of any kind that has ever been shown to deter mass murder: concealed-carry laws. In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the highly regarded economist Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect. And the effect was not small. States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60 percent and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80 percent. Consider just the school shootings -- popular sites for mass murder because so many schools are "gun-free zones." At Columbine High School, two students killed 13 people before ending the carnage themselves by committing suicide. They didn't need high-capacity magazines because they were able to stop and reload. At the Amish school shooting in 2006 in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, the deranged killer murdered five little girls and then committed suicide. In 1998, two students in Craighead County, Arkansas, killed five people, including four little girls, before the killers decided to stop and attempt an escape. And in 2007, a deranged student killed 32 people at Virginia Tech -- 30 of them in a very short period of time in one building. He didn't need high-capacity magazines because he had two guns and reloaded. There was no one to stop him. School shootings that have been halted were almost always stopped by the happenstance of an armed citizen on school property. In 2002, an immigrant in Virginia started shooting his classmates at the Appalachian Law School in Grundy. Two of his classmates retrieved guns from their cars, forcing the killer to drop his weapon and allowing a third classmate to tackle him. Three dead. In Santee, Calif., in 2001, when a student began shooting his classmates, the school activated its "safe school plan" -- as the principal later told CNN -- by sending a "trained campus supervisor" to stop the killer. Possibly not realizing that he was in a gun-free zone, the killer responded by shooting the trained campus supervisor three times. Fortunately, an armed off-duty San Diego policeman happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day. With a gun, he stopped the killer and held him at bay until more police could arrive. Two dead. In 1997, a student at Pearl High School in Pearl, Miss., had already shot several people at his high school and was headed for the junior high school when assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieved a .45 pistol from his car and pointed it at the gunman's head, ending the slaughter. Two dead. In 1998, a student attending a junior high school dance at a restaurant in Edinboro, Pa., started shooting, whereupon the restaurant owner pulled out his shotgun, chased the gunman from the restaurant and captured him for the police. One dead. See the pattern? In response to the Tucson shooting, gungrabbers want to ban the particular magazine Loughner used, or to get those pesky pro-second amenders to STFU. The next killer will come along with a different arsenal and a different motive, and the only way to stop him will be with an armed citizen with a gun.

Charlene Young February 2, 2011 12:44 pm (Pacific time)

The Blood Libel brouhaha has pretty much run it's course. It has not gotten any traction by those who sure gave it all they could. As an older woman born in the early 40's I have seen many types of radicals over the years, and they always fail in their never ending attempts to get the majority of Americans to follow them down their dark path. I have found that those who want to revise the court interpretation of the 2nd Amendment have no problem with this quote as being acceptable: You “honor the flag by burning it, and then you honor the Koran by jailing anyone found burning it." It's always so predictable that those who cannot debate the facts rely on insults and distractions, and maybe that's why those types will always be impotent. It's been fun to watch over the years, especially during the mid to late 60's.

Kevin February 1, 2011 2:10 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel you wrote below: "Kevin it always amazes me how your interpretation of "stats " always overlook reality . Your posts make me wonder if you are not a thirty some female hack based in Idaho working for the NRA." Actually the "stats" you refer to [are] the reality reflection of law-abiding and criminal firearm use. As far as my location and gender, which you appear to want to use as some method of sophmoric extrapolation (example: your above post excerpt) because of my "mainstream views"... well I am male, born in Canada. My father is American, mother Canadian, they divorced when I was young. I moved to the states when my mother died, and have lived in Oregon with my retired military Dad (also a farmer/rancher) since I was 10. I'm married with four kids, one on the way, and I usually work around 100+ hours a week during this time of the year. Obviously you are clearly disenchanted with mainstrean (read "majority") views on the Second Amendment. How fortunate you live somewhere that you can voice that opinion, even though it has no significant relevance to how the real world operates, which the FBI database has provided you and others if so inclined to educate yourselves in an objective manner. I do not believe I have insulted you, and I shall continue to show you the respect that I give to others, regardless of poor temperment and shortsightedness.

Mark Fairchild February 1, 2011 10:29 am (Pacific time)

Daniel I read below where you claim to be from New York. Do you know the state's history and how it has been radicalized by essentially people who would best be desribed as "hackers of the Bill of Rights," whose agenda is so obvious? I believe in the Second Amendment.

I believe that the best way to understand what the Second Amendment means today is to look at what it meant when it was written. To help do that, I would like to refer to a document produced in Poughkeepsie, New York, in July of 1788.
That’s when New York ratified the Constitution.
New York – my family’s home since 1632 – was the eleventh state to ratify the Constitution. As a consequence, New York is the eleventh star on the American flag. It is located in the second row from the top, on the far right.
New York was one of the original 13 colonies and the site of some of the Revolution’s most notable battles. It paid dearly in blood and treasure to establish American freedom.
And the convention in Poughkeepsie to consider the U.S. Constitution was composed of men who had fought the Revolution and been some of the most outspoken advocates for freedom. They were a convention of patriots, Founding Fathers in their own right.
In the document of New York ratification, the Poughkeepsie convention listed and reiterated the various understandings the delegates had of what the Constitution meant and protected. They pledged, pursuant to these understandings, New York’s allegiance to the Constitution.
And they wrote about what we now call the Second Amendment.
The New Yorkers said, “That the people have a right to keep and bear arms.”
Then the convention said, after a semicolon, “that a well regulated militia – including the body of the people capable of bearing arms – is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state.”
Put together as written, the paragraph read: “That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia – including the body of the people capable of bearing arms – is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free people.”
But the paragraph didn’t end with a period. It ended with another semicolon and the next paragraph said: “That the militia should not be subject to Martial Law except in time of war, rebellion or insurrection.”
I think this New York understanding of the Second Amendment clearly shows what the Framers intended by what they wrote in the Bill of Rights.

I believe that when it says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” that it means exactly that.
I believe it is an individual right – just like the rights listed through most of the Bill of Rights – and that it specifically means Americans have a constitutional right to own and carry guns.That’s what “keep and bear” means – own and carry.
I believe it as absolute and important a right as the freedom of speech or religion or the press. It stands next to the right to a jury trial and the protection against cruel and unusual punishment. It is as precious as our Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure and our Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination and uncompensated government taking of our property.
The Constitution isn’t a buffet. Government can’t pick and choose which parts it wants to follow. It is, every bit of it, our founding and defining document, and governmental disregard for it is a fundamental act of tyranny.
I believe the Second Amendment is a civil right and the effort to protect the right to keep and bear arms is a civil rights movement.
But not everyone feels that way.
Snide politicians and professors and pontificators claim that the Second Amendment is about the National Guard, that it is a right given to states, not individuals. They claim that somehow the Founding Fathers thought slipping a states rights issue into a listing of individual rights was a good idea. They claim that the right of the people to keep and bear arms meant that states were authorized to have maintain armies.
I think that’s a bunch of crap.
I think it’s typically a purposeful distortion of the historic record and common sense in an effort to advance a political agenda. I think people put forward that twisted interpretation of the Second Amendment because they don’t agree with the Second Amendment. They think the people ought not to have guns.
And they are free to think that.
But they are not free to subvert or pervert the Constitution. Any federal official who does so is violating his oath of office.
First of all, the right of the people to own guns is separated from the justification of a militia. Additionally, the militia is defined as all the people capable of bearing arms – not as a separately constituted military unit. The militia of the Founders was not the National Guard, it was all the guys in the neighborhood with strength enough to wield a gun.
The second paragraph further separates the militia from anything like a National Guard. New York signed onto the Constitution with the proviso that the militia not be subject to martial law except “in time of war, rebellion or insurrection.” In fact, the National Guard in New York has always been subject to martial law – the rules and regulations of the American military – even in times of peace and quiet.
So the militia is not the National Guard.
And the right to keep and bear guns is held by the people individually, not by the militia generally and not by a state-based army like the National Guard.
The facts are plain.
And so is the intent.
The Founding Fathers saw owning guns as a fundamental right as sacred as freedom of speech and religion. The constitutional protection of that right is just as earnest and important as any other.
For those who refuse to see that in the Second Amendment itself, New York patriots spelled it out as they elucidated the Constitution they were signing on to.
And modern patriots have an obligation to defend the Second Amendment, as they defend the entire Constitution. The fight for civil rights is ongoing, and the Founding Fathers foresaw that as they sought to craft a government of limited powers and a populace of maximum rights.
You have a right to own a gun.
The Founding Fathers said so.
Since the Guard is paid by the federal government, that also keeps them from being a true state militia. Plus, the POTUS can “nationalize” the guard whenever it suits him, so it is a “defacto” federal entity with the appearance of state control. That control only remains, under title 32, so the Guard can be used for police actions domestically without violating posse commutatus.

DJ: First: you say your family hails from New York, since 1632. Whose family? Jack Harmon or Mark Fairchild? You think we can be gulled, but it’s not the case. We have your IP pinned and will monitor it in the future.

Your comments about the Second Amendment are disingenuous, to say the least.

About the 2A you say: “The facts are plain. And so is the intent.” Nonsense. If that were true, there would be no disagreement. There are several drafts and the one that is accepted as part of the Constitution is arguably imprecise. These are things that unbiased Constitutional scholars will tell you so, it’s not just me voicing an opinion against yours.

You also say “You have a right to own a gun. The Founding Fathers said so.” The FFs also said that slavery was okay, women were not allowed to vote and in a census “negroes” were to be counted as “three fifths of a person”. If you want to cite the FFs as authorities, you cannot pick and choose what you like and the interpretations that fit your ideology. The world has changed a lot since the 18^th century and you pretend otherwise to your own intellectual and ideological peril. DJ

Daniel January 29, 2011 4:11 pm (Pacific time)

Kevin Yes there is a Drug war going on in Mexico with over 35,000 dead in the last 4 years . More die in Mexico from knives than guns, I am sure with less restrictions the gun deaths would go up . The gangs keep the violence on the Mexican side because the police and elements of the army are under their control . The last thing the Cartel Heads want is the USA intervening in force . Kevin it always amazes me how your interpretation of "stats " always overlook reality . Your posts make me wonder if you are not a thirty some female hack based in Idaho working for the NRA .

Daniel January 29, 2011 2:14 pm (Pacific time)

Dogood I am in agree with most of what you posted except you veered away from your own non identity concept with your men are mostly the killers line . Should we conceder ourselves mere mortals or do we put a sexual identity with it ?

Silece Dogood January 29, 2011 12:49 pm (Pacific time)

Reading some of the discourse herein points out the obvious: How little mankind has progressed in 3,000 years in the ‘Western world’, though the themes of rhetoric and its dissemination have expanded vastly.

It seems every faction has ‘fractions’ needing to exert individual and collective angst as a defense or offense, or both.

Our children across the globe are still indoctrinated and taught to kill for both ancient and now more recently conceived ideologies; leaders and followers (both)claiming ‘theirs’ is the rightful “God” or “Universal Truth” to assuage being slaughtered or slaughtering someone else in conflicts.

Unfortunately, it seems too often the largest scale wars are aggressions only to maintaining “modern economies” through ideological-illusions taught to the masses involved.

I can’t help ponder: are many of us so ‘individually lacking’ that as we cling tightly to our need for ‘unique-identities’ (racial, ethnic,political,religious,national,economic) some of us shall accomplish nothing but to contribute to collectively annihilating humanity so as to ensure our “identity”?

Only Women give birth and then (mostly) Men kill the living. Altruism toward someone “different” than ourselves is now popularly described as ‘self-loathing’; which leaves no room for peace.

Our ‘inheritances’ of diverse identities may well be our downfall unless we consider ourselves mere mortals before all else.

Daniel January 29, 2011 11:59 am (Pacific time)

Kevin If you watched living for 32 you would know its about enforcing the LAWS ON THE BOOKS , Not about new laws . The documentary shows how gun shows by pass the current laws and how easily unstable people can get guns WITHOUT ID 's . This is a violation of the law not some new restriction . Kevin I know you have your own agenda , you may be a paid poster for the NRA as far as I know . I read your post as such .

Kevin January 29, 2011 8:42 am (Pacific time)

Daniel, your favored site, "Democracy Now," chief writer Amy Goodman wrote: "In Ciudad Juarez, just 300 miles from Tucson, directly across the border from El Paso, Texas, Mexican officials say more than 3,100 people were killed in drug violence last year, the bloodiest year to date." http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/tucson_juarez_and_an_assault-weapons_ban_20110118/ What she failed to provide was the gun crime rate in El Paso Texas which allows for CHL's. (If you looked at an overhead photo, these two cities are indistinguishable regarding border seperation). Why do you think she did that? Well what is the murder rate comparison between El Paso and Ciudad Juarez? Remember that it's illegal for the average Mexican citizen to own a gun, much less have a CHL, and I have read that there are more guns in El Paso than people! "EL PASO, Texas -- The City of El Paso continues a decrease in overall crime through July 17, 2010, police officials announced on Wednesday. "Overall crime is down 1 percent compared to this same time last year. The murder category is down 83 percent this year compared to last year. Also, there were six during this time period in 2009 as compared to one in 2010." El Paso has approximately half the population, but statistically that could be compared accurately on a per capita basis. So what are the reasons that there is such a difference in murder and overall crime rates between these two next door locations? Could it be possible that legal gun ownership is part of the equation in terms of keeping crime down? The empirical evidence clearly shows that to be a significant causal factor. http://www.kvia.com/news/24341663/detail.html# Here's a link for U.S. city crime rates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

Kevin January 28, 2011 4:41 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel, regarding the DemocracyNow segment you referenced: the opinion of Colin Goddard and those like him, nor any others pining to restrict firearms, or their accompanying equipment, will simply not change the reality of over 100 million firearm owners and the current legal definition of the Second Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court. There are far more stories of survivors who maintained that status because of their firearm's use for protection. This link: http://www.gunfacts.info/ debunks all the myths out there. Have you even looked at it? It's pretty straight forward. If you can find some major problems with this site's info in a factual way, could you give me a heads-up? No amount of emotional distraction is going to change the facts, and that's why I recommend the GunFacts source. It is no doubt a nightmare for the gungrabbers with it's documented assortment of mythbraking facts . Thanks for the earlier viewing suggestion, for it just shows me how uninformed people can get when there is not an opposing source of accurate information available for them.

Daniel January 27, 2011 6:19 pm (Pacific time)

Kevin and other readers please watch todays Democracy Now . Last half feature clips from a new documentary living for 32 .

Charlene January 27, 2011 6:19 pm (Pacific time)

Editor: My husband is George Young, and our oldst son is George Jr. On one of our home computers Salem-news is on the browser "Favorite" list. I have no idea which George, maybe both, have posted comments onto this site previously. Neither are around at this time to inquire. Daniel, I have found that when people are having difficulty in a debate process, regardless of the reasons, that acting out in a pugnacious and distractive manner is nearly always their method. Have you also noticed that type of behavior? My below posts on this particular article are certainly a reflection of my opinion, coupled with an accurate portrayl of the facts. Those who disagree can certainly provide counter evidence, and I would like to see it. Just the same gun control is simply not going to happen anytime soon, it is political suicide. Guess who lost Tennessee in 2000 when they supported more gun control laws? The electoral college is unforgiving in this matter, not just local politics. The Founder's of this great country certanly had some uncanny foresight, much to the chagrin of the pugnaciously inclined distractors.

Kevin January 27, 2011 1:19 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel, and other interested readers, according to DOJ crime statistics, guns are used 2.5-million times per year to prevent robberies, rapes, murders, carjackings, home-invasions, etc., 99% of the time without a shot being fired. Please find the below [excellent] source to help you in developing your knowledge regarding the Second Amendment and other issues dealing with the citizen's natural right to protect themselves. "INTRODUCTION: Gun Facts is a free e-book that debunks common myths about gun control. It is intended as a reference guide for journalists, activists, politicians, and other people interested in restoring honesty to the debate about guns, crime, and the 2nd Amendment. Gun Facts has 98 pages of information. Divided into chapters based on gun control topics (assault weapons, ballistic finger printing, firearm availability, etc.), finding information is quick and easy. Each chapter lists common gun control myths, then lists a number of documented and cited facts (with nearly 500 detailed footnotes). Thus when a neighbor, editor or politician repeats some sound bite about firearm control policy, you can quickly find that myth then rebuke with real information." http://www.gunfacts.info/

Daniel January 26, 2011 5:31 pm (Pacific time)

Tim I am getting tired with every changing names from those who never answer a question . When cornered with fact they just squirrel away and change their name for the 10 time . I stopped reading their dribble because of their basic dishonesty in their identity !!! Tim as we discussed please limit to one id only or bump them .

Charlene January 26, 2011 9:54 am (Pacific time)

I have been following these posts and am amazed at the distractions Daniel is giving regarding the obvious gun crime databases and the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I suggest Daniel that you read the biographies of those Founding Fathers that wrote the Bill of Rights, with emphasis on the 2nd Amendment. It was clear that they were talking about individual ownership. More analysis was offered on this matter after the British atacked during the War of 1812 by numerous historians. Sure one can go pick out anything within the flow of history and augment that to "think" they are proving a point, but you have not been able to show any legal interpretation by the final arbitrators, the USSC, that back you up. I am also from Oregon and lived in New York long ago. In fact I remember my brother going to his pistol club near Union Square, and carrying his 22 in a case on the subway. It may have been an infraction or against the law back in the late 50's, not sure, but he never had a problem, nor anyone else in his club. In fact he kept the gun in his school locker prior to going to the range after school. Things do change, and New York, as well as many cities started spiking in crime, but as the FBI data clearly shows, those areas that provide no restrictions to the 2nd Amendment have less crime than cities that do. Daniel, you have no evidence to support your opinion, just distractive noise. Where is the evidence? If the 2nd Amendment is as you say, why have the majority on the Supreme court disagree? Why does the history of those who wrote the Bill of Rights disagree? There are close to 100 million gun owners, they are not going away, nor will congress attempt to do anything significant. Even today more states are passing laws where one can carry concealed without a license, plus more of a movement to allow "carry" at schools. Those people and groups who claim gun crime will go up with more people having guns also have no evidence. Regardless the number of rounds a weapon has available, it has not been proven to uptick crime from law abiding citizens, and it is the law abiding citizens that are protecting themselves, and the evidence is clear that gun ownership does protect them, better than the opposite situation. Maybe you would profit by reading some accurate history books as well as recent USSC rulings? It's all there. The evidence just overwhelms your undocumented opinion. I expect you will most likely pick some other historical situation, but the final decision on the 2nd Amendment has been made, and it is the lawful analysis, not some other historical opinion you may find favor with.

Editor: Two names under this IP, 'Charlene' and 'George Young'. Daniel has integrity, I know who he is, however when multiple names are used under a single IP things get dicey.

Daniel January 23, 2011 5:00 pm (Pacific time)

Bill the Supreme court in 1886 in U.S. vs Presser ruled the second amendment functions only as a check on the powers of the federal government preventing it from interfering with the states ability to maintain a militia and in NO WAY LIMITS THE STATE POWERS TO REGULATE FIREARMS . Please read the 1939 SC decision U.S.vs Miller and the 1980 U.S. vs lewis . These are supreme court rulings not some talk show host ranting over his understanding !

Daniel January 23, 2011 4:29 pm (Pacific time)

Bill I have lived in Oregon for over 30 years , the same for New York . I own property in both states , urban and rural . I am very familiar with both , it seems you are not . How many years have you lived in NY ? Your comparison made me laugh ! North Portland is not the Bronx , maybe in your mind . The majority of constitution scholars agree that the second amendment was about maintaining a state military . When it was written the single shot long gun and twin shot hand gun were the state of the art . It appears you do not understand the law of the land you just twist it to fit your own definition .

Bill Griffith January 23, 2011 1:33 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel where I'm from in Oregon we have a couple million people in my immediate vicinity. There are people of all races, and even a pretty large population of those here illegally. Though Oregon is way and above majority caucasian, Portland is much more racially mixed, and we are the better for it in my opinion. So in terms of your argument about our crime rate being low because of rural demographics, you obviously have little information about us Oregonians, which no doubt adversely impacts your ability to make a comprehensive and informed analysis of the thesis regarding more guns, less crime. Portland and the metro area is quite urban, and like most urban area's we have criminal problems, but the gun crime rate is much lower than "all" other similar sized cities that have restrictive limits on gun ownership, which would be in violation of recent court rulings. Speaking of Supreme Court rulings and their Second Amendment legal definition, and your interpretation, "The second Amendment was about maintaining a state militia , not about gun manufactures making a buck selling WMD . Sorry you are so caught up in your own agenda to see this." It appears that you are in disagreement with the law of the land, and to once again quote you Daniel, " Sorry you are so caught up in your own agenda to see this." As you must see to fully grasp the thesis, this is comparing apples with apples.

Daniel January 22, 2011 5:35 pm (Pacific time)

Bill you can also compare the USA violent crime rates unfavorably to countries that have strict gun laws . But again its like comparing apples to autos because of so many cultural differences that are not factored in the data !

Daniel January 22, 2011 4:56 pm (Pacific time)

Bill as I have pointed out high crime areas like New York city have a much different population and economic make up . New York is a gateway area for drugs and world wide imigration . A big difference from Idaho or Rural Oregon , why you cannot comprehend this is beyond me . Guns flow into new york from areas with lessor regulations , there is not a 15 wall between states . You are comparing apples with autos . If there was a national policy then you may be able to have meaningful stats ! In New York , especially rural areas there are numerous guns , mostly hunting gear . In the cities there are far too many hand guns , a great number illegally brought in from NJ or Pennsylvania . So how can you do stats and not factor in the all the illegal weapons or the vast differences in criminal activity in the vastly different areas ? Again your stats may be good for tv talking points but have little base in reality . My points are obvious but not if you are rigid in your political agenda . Bill I am not after your hunting rifle , but I would like to see some controls on the manufacture on multi clip hand guns that are designed to be close quarter WMD . The second Amendment was about maintaining a state militia , not about gun manufactures making a buck selling WMD . Sorry you are so caught up in your own agenda to see this .

Bill Griffith January 22, 2011 9:54 am (Pacific time)

Daniel I have not posted since the 14th, but have read all the below posts and am amazed how your views have remained so rigid. I am from Oregon, I have had a CHL for over 15 years, and have made it a mini-mission of mine to get friends and acquaintances to go out and take the CHL training and get their licenses. I simply have told these people to look at the crime rates here in Oregon, and those areas that have restrictive policies on gun ownership, it's not rocket science. Those that engage in distraction of these Justice Department statistics, what for? It's so obvious that those of us who own guns are safer than those who are restricicted from doing so. You have these politicians just ignoring the recent Supreme Court rulings that were made for DC and Chicago. Why? What is their endgame? Throughout the country gun owners engage in recreation shooting, and the use of large capacity magazines are frequently used. There is no empirical data that these magazines are abused criminally by lawful gunowners. Criminals obviously ignore the laws. Why do you think those areas that have high gun ownership have less crime and vice versa? If you can provide reasoning and conclusions beyond the obvious, then maybe you have a point to consider. I appreciate that you have your strong opinions on this matter, but they defy logic, and the available evidence that goes back literally decades. Unlikely you will get people to act in a way that makes them less safe, nor will politicians like those who want to restrict lawful ownership.

Daniel January 20, 2011 8:22 pm (Pacific time)

Kevin you state others read your stats and understood , who are they , where are their posts ? Now you are starting to sound like Mary Rosh . I just read all the posts here please point out who the couple of other people who read your posts and understood are ???

Kevin January 20, 2011 10:05 am (Pacific time)

Daniel I guess my below statements were unclear to you regarding gun crime stats in different areas, though I did have a couple other people read my posts on this matter and they understood. In those areas that have essentially very low restrictive laws on gun ownership, e.g. , those areas that have CHL's available, as in my state, you have relatively low gun crime. In those areas that have severe restrictions, e.g. , Chicago, Washington DC, New York, you have much higher gun crime. Conclusion in these latter areas is that illegal gun possession laws have no impact on reducing gun crime because criminals know that they are dealing with an unarmed population (as per the law). Of course there are many more causal reasons, I assume, but that does not alter the primary thesis. Subsequently Daniel, it does not matter one iota re: your concept "...porous nature between states." In terms of validity and reliability (qualitative), those are based on the FBI database of the above referenced areas, which are quantitative stats. Once again Daniel it is clear that gun ownership in America translates to lower gun crime. There is no database available that can refute that conclusion, which no doubt has been discouraging for those who have made an opposite claim that more guns causes more gun crime. Ditto for high capacity magazines. Also glad to hear that your Orchard needs very little chemical treatments. We have multiple types of crops, and are expanding our production in controlled-environment enclosures, and in most cases we use zero insecticides. Our hope is to renegotiate a land use plan with some acreage we lease from the federal government to enlarge that production. My wife's family has had an agreement with the Feds going back over 100 years when they developed scrub into rich [renewable] grasslands as they raised cattle and horses for the U.S. Army. We still raise cattle. Waiting on some supplies before I ride out, but we have already put down two wolves. Some find that very objectionable, but this is reality in assuring that our stock survive, as well as us, and those that depend on us continuing in business. We have more wildlife in our area because of managed hunting and organized culling, the latter monitored by law enforcement.

Daniel January 19, 2011 3:20 pm (Pacific time)

Kevin I believe I pointed out your stats are invalid because of the porous nature between states . Strict gun laws mean nothing if the rest of the country has looser restrictions surrounding the areas . You can not accurately determine data if you do not factor in all the guns that flow illegally into an area . Kevin thanks for the civill dialogue . I was also wondering if your 32 round clip was in a long gun or a small easy to hide hand gun , it makes a world of difference . Especially to an unstable person bringing a weapon into a school or public gathering . I only write about lott Jr because you brought him up ! I also have a small Organic orchard but do not need fire arms to protect it , only a little non toxic neem oil spray .

Kevin January 19, 2011 12:38 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel, excerpt from earlier post: "It seems to me Daniel, that your arguement is more based on the messenger (Professor Lott), for otherwise you have to find errors in the FBI databases. Have you found any errors? Even a cursory review and comparison of crime rates in those areas with unrestrictive v.s. restrictive gun availability would demonstrate the lack of validity/reliability in your position regarding the value of gun ownership, regardless of their components such as magazine-load characteristics." Good luck to you Daniel, I have really enjoyed hearing your point of view on these issues. Time for me to go check on our stock, have had two steers killed by predators, maybe by man, maybe not, but we are locked and loaded...and experienced. Lastly, those who ignore the laws, will also ignore any future gun laws at the detriment of law abiding folks. Remember law enforcement is not always there in a timely manner, so being able to defend yourself and loved ones is a natural right.

Daniel January 19, 2011 10:13 am (Pacific time)

Kevin , you also did not factor in the fact that walls between areas that have restrictive gun laws and those that do not are totally porous . You can not properly draw any conclusions from stats unless you have a national gun law . Its easy to bring a gun into NY from any where in the states that have less restrictive laws . As I stated earlier I put my faith in GOD not guns . The fact is you have a 1 in two lifetime chance of getting cancer , and about the same odds of a heart attack . We all die , lott Jr and guns will not save you when your time comes . There is a much greater chance toxic farm chemicals or a high fat diet will kill you , rather than some one with a gun . BTW will you be sending a note to the latest high school victim , sorry young mr gross was only exercising his rights when his loaded gun when off in the backpack and put a bullet in your head , so sorry again !

Daniel January 18, 2011 9:16 pm (Pacific time)

last point Kevin stats have no agenda , but Lott Jr's whole professional life has been funded by the right wing agenda . Please show me any of his work or books that have not been ! Not an honest broker , just another cleaver paid for hack .

Kevin January 18, 2011 6:10 pm (Pacific time)

Yes Daniel, you are 100% correct, stats can easily be skewed and cooked to meet one's agenda. As you know, stats have no agenda, right? I have seen many polls that have weighted their sample populations improperly, and am always suspicious when they do not make their internals available, or provide ways to replicate their methods and conclusions. Have you any experience in design, structure and interpretation of polling methodologies? It seems to me Daniel, that your arguement is more based on the messenger (Professor Lott), for otherwise you have to find errors in the FBI databases. Have you found any errors? Even a cursory review and comparison of crime rates in those areas with unrestrictive v.s. restrictive gun availability would demonstrate the lack of validity/reliability in your position regarding the value of gun ownership, regardless of their components such as magazine-load characteristics. Obviously you express a view about the second Amendment that is not shared by the majority, and most importantly, how the U.S. Supreme Court views it, which is the one that counts. My prayers are that you remain safe Daniel, and that the police can always protect you, rather than showing up after the fact to draw that chalk line, which is becoming more common each day in many urban areas. Have you seen the stats on the lengthening times for 911 responses in those urban areas? I wonder if Professor Lott has any studies on that? I enjoy living in my rural environment, but did spend considerable time living in urban areas, mostly during my school years and during various employment periods. We do experience crime out here in the sticks, and we network pretty closely with other folks, and have yet to hear much "whining," other than when urban folks tell us about what we need to do in regards to our profession and how to go about living our lives. It's a nice lifestyle Daniel, though I imagine many who live in urban areas may not like it. As far as large capacity magazines, I, and my father, have had a few experiences with some rogue wildlife where they sure came in handy. You just never know what may happen here in the sticks. We all have different experiences which in turn helps us form our opinions, it's evident that we have had different experiences. I purposely "do not" judge people who have had limited or dissimilar life experiences, that would be really unfair, don't you think Daniel?

Freda January 18, 2011 5:04 pm (Pacific time)

Editor: Well I agree with a lot of that... It is about getting people together.
I am glad we agree on something now do I have to tell your mother on you? Just because you do not agree with my and others views point don't call names, in any of my text have I call names but I stated my view point.As a teacher I teach that we must disagree without verablly calling names. Lets make a change here ok!
Its ok to dedate but leave out the name calling just state the facts or your opinion.

Editor: Freda, I am called more names all day long than you would expect or believe. I had to check, for the record I didn't call you any names, I guess you mean my reference to the talk show hosts? Anyway, you are obviously a well intended person so let's move out of the negative zone. The world is full of tragedy and we basically swim in tragedy in this line of work. I can't begin to tell you how difficult it is to keep opinion out of it. I lost the bliss of ignorance long ago unfortunately, I will try though, thanks for your comment..

Freda January 18, 2011 3:30 pm (Pacific time)

What this makes me is a Gentile that has been adopted by God though his son Jesus. while I was a sinner Christ die for me. if you want to learn more I suggest you read the Book Of Romans in the Bible, but none of this is doing anyone any good. The fact is that a young Boy who fail though the cracks did an horrible thing and many people suffered for it and that is what we should be trying to fix. No one wins at this, not families on either side. Instead of using it for political reasons use it solve the problems of mental illness. Give it a rest just give the family time to mourn. Your rants are not going to change anything but if you want to change the world then do it out of love not hate. What happen to our country coming together instead of looking for a chance to get the other side.
God Bless

Editor: Well I agree with a lot of that... It is about getting people together.

Mike January 18, 2011 1:57 pm (Pacific time)

Editor your comment to Freda included: "These 'men' you refer to; Beck adn Limbaugh, are dogs who rely on the weak willed sheepish Americans to react by and from fear. They are not people who ever served in the military, they aren't extremely educated professionals, they are media pundits." Now what do you call those professionals on the right who are decorated combat veterans (are you?), well educated with post graduate degrees (you have one?) who agree with these pundits that obviously annoy you? Or better yet, these pundits agree with them! Regarding the term "Blood Libel," you think this term is just for slighted Jews from the past to use? Mr. Barth has an opinion that is a minority opinion, as is yours in this regard. Maybe you missed the article Freda referenced from the Washington Post editorial who used the term "Blood Libel" that several days Palin used? That publication has a very large audience, so why no bums ruch against them?

Editor: First, the term you are apparently trying to use is 'Bum's Rush' (1. forcible ejection, as from a gathering. 2. rapid dismissal, as of an idea ..) Second, Dr. Barth has the degrees, I am from the other side of life and it is important that a group like ours has an academic and a non-academic aspect. I appreciate how my reference to your little warmonger heroes not being veterans when they ROOT to send the sons and daughters of other Americans to needless wars that are not justified or even morally decent, leads you to question whether I am a decorated veteran. What does it matter if I have combat background, I am not rooting for war, do you get it? Yes, those idiots annoy me.

Oh, and being a Palin supporter does not place you in any majority.

Daniel January 18, 2011 10:08 am (Pacific time)

Kevin we both know stats and surveys can be cooked or skewed according to the intent of the surveyor . Lotts academic life has been spent creating data for right wing groups that generously fund him . This site is not large enough for limited one side postings about him , those interested can do there own research , as we both have . My conclusion points to a paid hack who only supports the beliefs of his handlers , and using mary rosh as a fake name on line to support himself , what an embarrassment hiding behind his own dress ! When the founding fathers created the second amendment it was about the right to defend yourself from the government , having just fought a bloody war against a KING . I will agree tho there are many reasons the government will come after you , and its mostly about weapons . Weapons do not protect you from the government they only make you a big target . Just try pointing your weapon in the direction of the police and see how long it take them to fire . I am not doing anything illegal so I do not worry about the government coming for me . The right was not about gun manufacturers creating WMD with 32 round clips that are only good for mass killing at short range . This is not a hunting weapon or a toy , its made for killing people ! Sitting away on your farm you are not patrolling the streets that have children in control of weapons like this . Instead you whine they are taking my toys , giving the big business of death merchants a free hand and stamp of approval .

Daniel January 18, 2011 8:14 am (Pacific time)

Rodger Charles Habermann called up a congressman twice and said he would kill him and his family , people calling themselves tea party members said they would kill republican Anthony Miller , an African American , who resigned for his safety . This is the free speech I am talking about . Seems like you just divert the attention to your own agenda and avoid or twist facts of the current situation . Kevin your one sided cut and paste does not impress , I have read the other side ! Freda if you believe the jewish people are the chosen ones and you are not jewish what does that make you , less than chosen ? BTW chosen for what ? Does this chosen concept also include the converts ? People keep posting about the Liberal media , you mean the ones who marched us lock step into three wars . Democracy Now is the only real liberal media and they opposed the war . I support all those who live in Israel who want to live in peace , not just the Jewish population . I do not support a number of the actions of their government in coming away from a peaceful solution . Nor the actions of radical settler groups who constantly cook up trouble in an explosive situation . The radical elements of the Moslem world just feed on the overreaction of the IDF . A bad situation just becomes worse !

Freda January 17, 2011 8:07 pm (Pacific time)

"These 'men' you refer to; Beck and Limbaugh, are dogs who rely on the weak willed sheepish Americans to react by and from fear." I don not listen to him and really can't tell you a lot of what he says or Beck either but isn't this the language that the president said that was not good for Americans also maybe some people think the people you listen to (which I have listen to) are just has bad but I do not refer to them as dogs or blame them for the shooting of President Reagan even before any evidence was found to support the claim.

Freda January 17, 2011 7:56 pm (Pacific time)

I am a great supporter of the people of Israel and I think they are God's chosen people but I think the people who are speaking out about this in the media have in the past NOT supported Israel and now they think this a racial term. A DOUBLE STANDARD.

Editor: Freda, for the record, we are all anti-racists at Salem-News.com. There is no one bigger subject. I personally could care less what faith a person follows. I do not think any group has more of a right to live than any other. We are all equal in God's eyes. I support the human race.

freda January 17, 2011 7:50 pm (Pacific time)

Dr. Barth's position I assure is one worth listening to then call out the Washington post wtiter that said he has use the term. Why just one part of the media?

Freda January 17, 2011 6:46 pm (Pacific time)

I usually don’t write comments, but I have to say I think you sound like the victim because the liberal media is so upset that their agenda is falling apart that they were hoping beyond hope that they could tie this to a conservative person like Beck, Plain or Limbaugh. At the most you were hoping to find out it was Tea party person. Instead this person is a mentality ill person who did a horrible thing and what you did with your words is right up there. To use a word like blood Libel and try to turn it in to a racial remark but do you condemn those who use it in the liberal community? If you are that upset about blood libel being used then call out the liberal writers.
Therefore you rush to judgment, and now you have egg on your face (again). I think you should listen to the president and stop attacking people that don’t share your view point because there are millions of us that don’t.

Editor: Are you Jewish? Probably not. Perhaps that would explain why you don't have much of a reaction to the use of that ugly term that is used to describe people in ways that are untrue, and it is wrong. Dr. Barth's position I assure is one worth listening to.

These 'men' you refer to; Beck adn Limbaugh, are dogs who rely on the weak willed sheepish Americans to react by and from fear. They are not people who ever served in the military, they aren't extremely educated professionals, they are media pundits. The only thing your heroes do is attack and if the shoe was on the other foot, you guys would run it right down the field and you know you would. We would never hear the end of it.

Exposer January 17, 2011 1:31 pm (Pacific time)

What I find interesting about the below article, is that the majority of Americans have already ackowledged that they know it is the far right that has been the cause of all American radical violence going back easily to WWI, but the ignorant fool who reads this news site has no idea how the flow of history lays out. So watch as scumbag scag stinky Palin's numbers fall to the floor. Haha. Salem-News.com is one of the only news agencies that can see the world through that fog. That POS President George W. Bush started the downhill slide and he shoots and kills democrats!

William K. Barth January 17, 2011 12:40 am (Pacific time)

The term Blood Liable is a broadly used term. That is, so long as you are referring to the middle-ages.

Harris January 17, 2011 12:23 pm (Pacific time)

The Tucson shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 19 other people has been center stage in the news for a week now. That is understandable. What is truly bizarre is how people are trying to suggest that Palin isn't at fault, I say BS. Hard right talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are being asked by Democrat leaders to "tone down the rhetoric" – finally!. Regarding the shooter, 22-year-old Jared - the American political culture is deemed to have "inspired" his violent acts. This is not hogwash. Palin's words were a calculated and deliberate slander on Arizona and America.

Larry Gholson January 17, 2011 8:26 am (Pacific time)

So who really has the most documented history of vitriol, not just over time, but also in quanity. It's time for the left to take responsibility, which they never will. But we have elections and over time they will continue to lose power. "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at" Bill Ayers (1970), quoted in New York Times, September 11, 2001// Dig It. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, they even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach! Wild!" -Weather Underground leader and wife of Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, referring to the Manson murders. "It was at the Chicago home of [Bill] Ayers and [Bernardine] Dohrn that Obama, then an up-and-coming 'community organizer,' had his political coming out party in 1995. Not content with this rite of passage in Lefty World — where unrepentant terrorists are regarded as progressive luminaries, still working 'only to educate' — both Obamas tended to the relationship with the Ayers." Article: The Company He Keeps: Meet Obama’s circle: The same old America-hating Left http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YThjYTU1ZDBjNmQ2YzcwNzU1MmYwN2JiMWY0ZGI0NDA=andw=MA== Think what those people who want "redistribution" really want? These are defacto criminal people just like the AZ shooter.They really are folks, and they deserve to be treated like all those who conspire to committ homicide, treason or sedition, if proven in a court of law. Let's get busy with the Grand Jury process on the state levels, and that is a constitutional process.

Sherri Jameson January 17, 2011 8:12 am (Pacific time)

Is Sarah Palin Teflon-coated?
"Americans View Palin as Less Sincere and Believable After Watching Speech. Media outlet after media outlet played Sarah Palin's video response to last Saturday's Tucson shootings with some going so far as claiming it ended any chance she might have of becoming president assuming that's even her goal. no kidding!
Pollsters actually found Americans seeing the former Alaska governor as less useful than ever.
Palin’s a joke!

Kevin January 16, 2011 9:39 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel please keep in mind that Lott's data can be easily replicated, whereas his critics can only argue statistical formula's, not the data. In addition most all of his critics come from an agenda that encourages legislation favorable to organizations such as the Brady Bunch. His data is in effect clearly empirical, and directly correlates with FBI databases in which they are drawn from. Even novice researchers can look at the data and come to the same conclusions that Professor Lott has without engaging in sophisticated statistical math. Lott argues in both More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns that media coverage of defensive gun use is rare, noting that in general, only shootings ending in fatalities are discussed in news stories. In More Guns, Less Crime, Lott writes that "[s]ince in many defensive cases a handgun is simply brandished, and no one is harmed, many defensive uses are never even reported to the police".Attempting to quantify this phenomenon, in the first edition of the book, published in May 1998, Lott wrote that "national surveys" suggested that "98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack." In 2002, he repeated the study, and reported that brandishing a weapon was sufficient to stop an attack 95% of the time. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz's 1994 estimate rises to 92 percent when brandishing and warning shots are added together. Lott explained the lower rates found by others was at least in part due to the different questions that were asked. The other surveys all asked people to recall events over the previous five years, while Lott had only asked people about events that had occurred during the previous year. Lott used the higher estimate because it was biased against his claim of media bias. The survey questions have also been made available for years to anyone who would have liked to replicate the survey themselves. Some groups are not very honest Daniel, for example "An anti-gun organization set up a website pretending to be run by Lott. The website was run and emails sent out under Lott's name to claim that Lott opposed legislation designed to limit suits against gun makers and that Lott had reconsidered his position on how individuals could sell guns, positions that Lott had not taken. "E-mails from visitors questioning whether or not the site was actually run by Lott were responded to with messages signed by 'John Lott,' arguing that the site was, in fact, run by the academic well known for his research into the reductions in violent crime resulting from citizens carrying concealed handguns. But comments on the site and claims made in e-mails purportedly from Lott were inconsistent with his research and beliefs and some emails had Lott suggesting ways for people to evade gun control laws." The bottom line Daniel is that there is a clear prima facie case that more gun ownership has happened at the same time that crime has gone down. The gun grabbers have claimed for decades that more guns would cause more crime, a vitual bloodbath, and this has not happened. Ditto for the Assault Weapons Ban. All you have to do is look at the crime rates between those area's that allow for CHL's and those that do not. Regardless of your position on guns, the data is clear, plus no matter what, criminals will never follow the law, so people need to be able to protect themselves. Regarding high capacity magazines, their potential future need, look to the southern borders, and think about that violence that is moving north. But so what anyway, it is personal preference, and recreational shooting often includes the use of high capacity magazines. I do protect my livestock by dispatching predators, have you ever been exposed to what we farmers/ranchers must deal with it that regard? I guess, not.

Daniel January 16, 2011 7:22 pm (Pacific time)

Make that all quiet on the western front , need to use the reading glasses .

Daniel January 16, 2011 7:15 pm (Pacific time)

Rodger save your rant for someone else I never watch network news or the talking heads of any of the major networks ! I must say the limited clips I saw of Glen Beck on Democracy Now reminded me of film clips of a German youth Bond rally of the 1930s . I also flashed back to the German Professor in all quite on the western front , the original version . Why anyone would base reality on any of them is beyond me . I can read, I do not need someone to spoon feed me the news and propaganda between the toxic medicine and beer commercials .

Roger January 16, 2011 6:14 pm (Pacific time)

MSNBC has been the most venomous, a fact NBC has glossed over in its coverage castigating conservatives. The network’s 8 pm ET host Keith Olbermann in 2009 referred to columnist Michelle Malkin as “a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it.” Hardball’s Chris Matthews fantasized about the death of Rush Limbaugh: “Somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp.” On his national radio show in 2009, however, Schultz wished for Dick Cheney’s death: “He is an enemy of the country, in my opinion, Dick Cheney is, he is an enemy of the country....Lord, take him to the Promised Land, will you?” In 2010, Schultz screamed that “Dick Cheney’s heart’s a political football. We ought to rip it out and kick it around and stuff it back in him!” No doubt the media will continue to discuss Sarah Palin’s "targets" rather than Shultz’s "football. There is so much more documentation, but the bottom line is that all the polls are showing that the American people are starting to get whose been growing the big nose.

Editor: Um, you mean you are pissed that the shoe is on the other foot, after all the years of right wing talk radio? I abhor violence, I think it is terrible, but I hate to tell you what I would do to any of those SOB's. People respond to venom, I look forward to seeing these men go away and never come back. Are you or anyone else really truly bothered by comments about Cheney? What is your argument, what did he do that was positive?

Roger January 16, 2011 6:08 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel in a below post you stated: "Sorry FREE SPEACH (SIC) does not include DEATH THREATS." President Obama wisely counseled the nation this week at the Tucson massacre memorial that “Bad things happen, and we must guard against simple explanations in the aftermath.” But as the Left’s smear-stained recent history shows, criminalizing conservatism is a hard habit to break. In September 2009, Bill Sparkman, a federal U.S. Census worker, was found dead in a secluded rural Kentucky cemetery with the word “Fed” scrawled on his chest with a rope around his neck. The Atlantic Monthly’s Andrew Sullivan rushed to indict “Southern populist terrorism, whipped up by the GOP and its Fox and talk radio cohorts” in an online magazine post titled “No Suicide,” which decried the “Kentucky lynching.” Liberal author Richard Benjamin blamed “anti-government” bile. New York magazine fingered conservative talk radio personality Rush Limbaugh, “conservative media personalities, websites, and even members of Congress.” So, who killed Bill Sparkman? Bill Sparkman. He killed himself and deliberately manufactured a hate crime hoax as part of an insurance scam to benefit his surviving son. In February 2010, ticking time-bomb professor Amy Bishop gunned down three of her colleagues at University of Alabama-Huntsville and suicide pilot Joseph Andrew Stack flew a stolen small plane into an Austin, Texas, office complex that contained an Internal Revenue Service office. Mainstream journalists from Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart to Time magazine reporter Hilary Hylton leaped forward to tie the crimes to Tea Party rhetoric. Never mind that Bishop was an Obama-worshiping academic with a lifelong history of violence or that Stack was another Bush-hater outraged about everything from George W. Bush to the American medical system to the evils of capitalism. In May 2010, liberal New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg tried to preemptively pin the Times Square bombing attempt on “someone with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something.” The culprit was unrepentant Muslim jihadist Faisal Shahzad. In August 2010, Democrat supporters of Missouri Rep. Russ Carnahan blamed a “firebombing” at the congressman’s St. Louis office on Tea Party suspects. The real perpetrator? Disgruntled progressive activist Chris Powers, enraged over a paycheck dispute.

Daniel January 16, 2011 4:53 pm (Pacific time)

BTW Kevin what branch of the service were you in to defend the rights of Americans ? You sure TALK about rights a lot . You sound pretty handy with a weapon . Is it only for the fun of shooting small creatures that can not shoot back or just the loud bang that turns you on ! Maybe it makes you feel powerful , what ever ! As long as you dont kill anyone I could care less .

Daniel January 16, 2011 4:29 pm (Pacific time)

Kevin first of all there is nowhere in my posts where I say I want to take your Guns . I would like to see sensible policy about 32 round magazines . You state after I run out of my first clip of 16 its easy to make a transfer . What the heck would I need a 16 round clip for . The enemy is not coming over the ridge in force , maybe in your mind . A 50 cal , is that for the squirrels and rodents ? What ever turns you on ! On John Lott or his other name Mary Rosh the information on the web against his data is too overwhelming to post. Please google his name than disputed data for numerous results .

Kevin January 16, 2011 2:33 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel I have no talking points, why do you make that statement? I seem to detect that you have some beef with the Second Amendment? Maybe I'm wrong? I live in a pretty rural area and split much of my time here in the States and in Canada, but have many veterans in my family, and have been raised around many kinds of firearms. My primary use of firearms is for hunting, dispatching varmints, protecting livestock, and recreation. Those people who choose to exercise their right to own firearms number in the tens of millions, so your odds of making even a negligible impact on these people is, well, negligible. The FBI has reported that gun sales started increasing quite rapidly in November of 2008 and at the same time gun crime has gone down. That is the FBI Daniel, not someone reading tea leaves or someone saying how they feel about something devoid of real facts. So that pretty well disputes the "talking points" of those who desire to confiscate firearms. Professor Lott, whom you call a hack is a well respected authority on gun crime and their related statistics. His source is the FBI databases and different law enforcement agencies. So do you have proof that he is misleading people? Have you a source that supports your opinion with actual real facts? I would love to see them. I know many have stated what you have, but so far no one has offered any real evidence, so good luck with that. As far as magazine clips that have a large number of rounds, no doubt that is a personal preference. Recall the assualt weapons ban that began in 1994 and sunsetted in 2004? The Brady people made it sound like the world would come to an end if the ban stopped. Well nothing has changed in regards to increased crime. Do you know why? As far as large ammo clips, have you tried say firing a 16 round clip and put in new ones as you run out of ammo? You can nearly make a seamless transfer. Also, those big magazines can jam pretty easily because of the spring tension occasionally messes up. But so what about their size, what difference does it really make? Criminals or insane people will find a way to cause mayhem no matter what type of weapon is available. When you start regulating anything, it lends itself to creating more and more regulations/laws. Anyway maybe it would be a good idea to enforce the thousands of gun laws on the books, because 99.9% of lawful gunowners do not have a problem. BTW, I have a .50 caliber, which I simply like to fire for recreation, so what's the harm? Whatever reasons people have for owning firearms is their business. There have also been law enforcement people in my family as well as my wife's, and still are. They seem to be in the consensus that they agree with people having CHL's. Maybe some of those urban police disagree, but the stats are not on their side when it comes to keeping crime down. Just look at the gun crime rate with those gun restrictive areas and compare similar areas that allow unrestrictive ownership. Tough to provide a counter-arguement, but people with an agenda will never quit trying from what I've noticed.

Roger January 16, 2011 10:51 am (Pacific time)

Daniel regarding your comments on President Obama's popularity, it may not be as you hope. I think Rasmussen polls "likely voters" , whereas others poll "all adults." That being said, I’m a bit surprised at the result too with all the fawning coverage of the Tucson speech. The “Tucson bounce” doesn’t appear to have registered at all on Rasmussen polling. Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll - 44% approve 55% disapprove. If that was the best speech of his Presidency and the best he gets is a 44% approval rating 5 days later! To me it is just amazing that 44% still approve. I guess economy/job picture is so bad, even the left wing media bias can’t make up the shortfall, or if there was a time to be "presidential" and for once act like a Commander-in-Chief, it was in the immediate aftermath of the Fort Hood massacre....or after the attempt of a terrorist to take down an airline on Christmas Eve. That is when he should have been "presidential". To use the Tucson shooting just comes across as opportunistic. The majority of the American people see it for what it is. That landslide vote last November down on the state level says it all.

Daniel January 16, 2011 10:26 am (Pacific time)

Just to add about John Lott , the right wing hack and fox commentator , this is the guy who used a false persona to praise and critique his own work ! He even praised himself as the greatest professor he ever had under the FAKE name of Rosa . His research has been extensively disputed and refuted . Kevin I now see where you get your talking points from .

Daniel January 16, 2011 9:28 am (Pacific time)

Kevin A glock with a 32 round clip is not a hunting weapon . Its a weapon for police , violent gangsters and nut cases . Its good for short range mass killing of people . Not a great weapon to defend your home if you think the government is coming for you . In fact those who are so FEARFUL of the government should leave the country , do the rest of us a favor . History shows us those who take up arms to be free or independent of the government are the first to fall , think black panthers , david koresh , AIM , and many others . No Kevin they were not shot by a bowman , thats my point ! They were mowed down by a nut with a 32 round clip , thank god an unarmed woman had the guts to grab the second clip . I also wonder how come there was no armed security or police on the scene . Kevin if you talk to the people who patrol the streets you get a different picture than some ivy leaguer with a new book to sell .

Kevin January 15, 2011 6:24 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel my below post was not addressed to any one individual, just some brief observations of the obvious. Regarding your position on gun ownership, well that is your right, are you saying those who have a different view should have their rights dismissed as the political powers in Chicago, D.C. and countless other political fiefdoms are "still" attempting to do by ignoring the U.S. Supreme Court's law of the land opinions? And no Daniel, I am not changing the discussion, for the gun issue is a major component don't you think? I mean, were they shot by a skilled bowman, an ability you appear to be impressed with? I have done my share of bow hunting, but prefer using a high powered rifle. If you would be interested in understanding the gun issue better, BELOW IS AN EXCELLENT INTERVIEW THAT OFFERS FACTS NOT MYTH: "Rounding Up the Guns ,What not to do. The go-to expert on foolish rushes to further restrict guns after a shooting is Yale Professor John R. Lott Jr. An economist and author of the authoritative More Guns, Less Crime, now in its third edition. National Review Online talked to him about the Tucson attack." http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/257026

Daniel January 15, 2011 4:34 pm (Pacific time)

Kevin BTY my father was a decorated police officer who AGREED with NEW YORK guns laws . He was the guy on the street who saw the harm guns do to people . I served honorable in the military as a combat engineers , the red beret , in the late 60s early 70s . I am familiar with all types of explosives and weapons , I currently have none . I do not live in cowering fear clutching a weapon , I put my trust in GOD . As the great Hank Williams said no mater how hard I try I will never get out of this world alive . Those who live in fear are never free ! If you hunt use a bow , but that takes skill .

Daniel January 15, 2011 3:38 pm (Pacific time)

Kevin I never said Palin was directly responsible , just that she is trying to make herself the victim . I did point out that Republican Anthony Miller resigned over DEATH THREATS from the TEA PARTY . I also pointed at Charles Habermann who was arrested for making DEATH THREATS to a washington State congressman and his FAMILY . Sorry FREE SPEACH does not include DEATH THREATS . Kevin I see you are trying to shift the debate to gun control ! Are you being intellectually dishonest ? Maybe its in your DNA .

Daniel January 15, 2011 2:15 pm (Pacific time)

Just watched Democracy Now on the net , on the show they had clips of Glen Beck . I must admit I do not watch the network news or any main stream tv . I was shocked at how vile and shallow this man is , and a merchant of hate . I now have a better understanding why the left is so upset with this guy and the rhetoric from the extreme right .

Roger Miles January 15, 2011 12:25 pm (Pacific time)

Well, it looks like those who blamed Sarah Palin and the Tea Party for political gain are going to wish that they had waited just a couple of days. Jared Loughner has been described by a former classmate as “left wing, quite liberal,” and a “pothead,” — hardly a Tea Party fan — who has had a fixation on Giffords since 2007, well before Sarah Palin or the Tea Party made their entry onto the national political scene. I think Daniel proves Palin's point about "irresponsible journalists," no?
After all, thousands of mindless libs now believe the shooting was Palin's fault.

Editor: If things were the other way around you guys would be unrelenting. Potheads don't kill, so that must not be the case. He liked Hitler's Mein Kampf, you see that is liberal too Roger Miles? He was a skinhead, not a pothead.

Kevin January 15, 2011 11:41 am (Pacific time)

I can deal with people who are dead wrong. It's people who are intellectually dishonest and shift terms of debate so that they're always (in their minds) correct that I find so disappointing. This snobbery, maybe it's in their DNA? Why are some politicians' first instincts to punish 300 million innocent Americans for the crimes of a single individual? Why rush to introduce bills banning even symbolic speech that some might be able to construe as "threatening," when the First Amendment clearly states that "Congress shall make no law . . ."? It's precisely our tradition of free and robust political speech that keeps us free. Politicians don't have a divine right not to be insulted. "Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) wants to ban speech that "threatens" public officials in the interests of "toning down the rhetoric." Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) wants to reinstate the so-called Fairness Doctrine to regulate talk radio. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) plans to introduce a law banning the carrying of a firearm within 1,000 feet of a "high-profile" government official. We've clearly drifted into uncharted waters when the martial images of political campaigns can now be deemed "threatening," there must be someone who's heard of metaphor and simile -- and who knows the difference between image and reality. As for the Second Amendment, and its guarantee of individuals' firearm rights (upheld and codified by the Supreme Court in the recent Heller and McDonald decisions), critics ignore several salient facts: Inanimate objects don't commit crimes -- only human beings with free will can do that -- and criminals will always be able to get guns. Mexico has a grand total of one legal gun shop and yet somehow the country is awash in military-grade weapons (most of them, according to a report in The Los Angeles Times, smuggled in not from the United States but from Central America). The fact is, outrages like Tucson are the exception -- not the rule. Arizona's gun laws may be among the most "lenient" in America, but they're not as "lax" as Vermont's -- and nobody's rushing to demonize Howard Dean or Bernie Sanders. Indeed, Arizona's laws are far closer to the American mainstream than are the restrictive policies of New York, Massachusetts and California, and look at their gun crime rates for comparison. Benjamin Franklin's famous admonition -- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" -- has rarely been more apposite. There's no collective guilt in Tucson, just the monstrous acts of a lone man," which was the thesis of Sarah Palin's Blood Libel speech, and in that regard, the majority of Americans agree with her.

Daniel January 15, 2011 1:21 am (Pacific time)

Bill its true many negative statements were made about President Bush . Of course sending our young man and women to fight and die in a bogus war with proven false data did not help his standing . Nor sitting at the ranch while thousands were dying on there roof tops in New Orleans . The vast erosion of our rights , tax cuts for the rich and helping destroy the economy did not increase his popularity . Obama has been under non stopped attack from before he took office about his birthright , his friends his family and giving some benefits to the working poor . 60% do not agree with Palin , just that this guy was over the edge , I agree with that . My mothers mother was of Jewish ancestry , but I am not Jewish because I do not practice the RELIGION . Religion is not by birth , its by practice . Judaism is a religion with many many converts over the years including the Egyptians , the Germans , Polish and Russians .

Daniel January 14, 2011 7:48 pm (Pacific time)

Bill G I just read Arizona Republican Anthony Miller resigned because of violent laced EMAILS FROM TEA PARTY MEMBERS ! I guess Sarah has nothing to do with influencing the Tea Party or there violent threats . She will be speaking at a gun rally soon . BTW what is it you find so attractive about her , her education , years to get a BA going to a number of small schools , quitting her position as Governor so she could make lots of money doing reality shows and book signing . How about her inciting speeches with a poor command of english . I personally want to see her on the Republican ticket , It will insure President Obama's reelection .

Bill Griffith January 14, 2011 7:01 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel I agree with you that president Obama gave an excellent speech, even though with all the screams of "I love you Obama" from the college students made it sound like a pep rally rather than a memorial. Just the same President Obama showed some real class and I was very proud of the way he handled some of the inappropriate behavior. But the thrust of my below post dealt with the above article and Governor Palin's use of the term Blood Libel. My wife is Jewish, subsequently our children are considered Jewish. I am agnostic, but believe in Intelligent Design. Many of our friends are Jewish, several quite liberal, and none saw any problem with her usage of the term Blood Libel, even though many cannot stand her politics. Back to Obama's speech, he did in essence request that we do better, and from what I've seen so far, those on the far left have continued with their assertions that conservatives engage in hate speech causing people to act out criminally (no evidence), while it is obvious that's the kettle calling the pot black, don't you think? There is considerable documentation, written and video showing considerable hateful behavior by non-conservatives, maybe you tune those out? Also evidence abounds that conservatives are attacked more frequently by those associated with the left, and that is via law enforcement records. A liberal friend continues to bring up the targeting "Crosshairs" put out in campaign literature, until earlier today I reminded him of our debates after watching the show "Crossfire" of several years ago. Remember the logo? This particular symbol dates back decades by both major parties. The 60% (58% is the number, rounded up) I got from a national pollster who said: "A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 28% of Adults say the shooting in Arizona was the result of political anger in the country. Fifty-eight percent (58%) say instead that it was a random act of violence by an unstable person. Fourteen percent (14%) are undecided. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2011/most_americans_view_arizona_shootings_as_random_act_of_violence_not_politics

Daniel January 14, 2011 5:48 pm (Pacific time)

Bill Alan Dershowitz A progressive ??? Maybe many years ago but certainly not today , try neocon . You say 60% approve , where do you pull this number from . Obama scored a home run out of the field with a thoughtful compassionate speech , Sarah just played victim . Even Glen Beck PRAISED THe Presidents speech . The ultra conservative Abe Fox also thought Sarah's words inappropriate . With THE PRESIDENT its been non stop bogus withering attacks from his citizenship to his religion to his wife , family and friends . He was PRESIDENTIAL in his response , but nobody has been more libeled then HIM . Where is your patriotism in supporting the sitting head of OUR government . BTW the millionaire trust fund baby Charles Habermann sure fits the tea party mold , your know the guy who threatened the life of the Washington state Congressman and HIS FAMILY with violent death . Bill President Obama's numbers are up , easily defeating the slate of Republican contenders . Obama knows how to turn the other cheek , I can not say the same for the half term quitter who is crying all the way to the bank .

carmonainteriors@aol.com January 14, 2011 3:57 pm (Pacific time)

great article, thanks you Dr. Barth

Bill Griffith January 14, 2011 10:08 am (Pacific time)

If someone accused you of lies, or misrepresentation, would you remain quiet? Sarah Palin is supposed to sit down and just take whatever defamation people throw at her? Then they assail Governor Palin for defending her character in response to the defamation. It wasn't an accident, and it shows that Sarah Palin is in charge of her life. The media will continue to attack her in a manner well across the line separating normal people from the insane, and she will continue to take them to task. She used the term "blood libel" correctly, she knew it, and what passes for journalists today thought they could fool the public with their lies. Over 60% of Americans agree with Palin. Again, Sarah proved them wrong. Jonathan Mark (and progressive Alan Dershowitz, see below) writes that Palin is absolutely correct in her assessment of the term "Blood Libel": "Sarah Palin is right. She is being slandered. Nothing reflects the vulgarity of the national conversation over the past few years more than the relentless "hating" of Sara Palin, particularly in the Jewish community, particularly those Jews who flatter themselves as being tolerant, as masters of civility. The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People, its current usage is far broader. Others have defended her use of the term, including Alan Dershowitz, "I myself have used it to describe false accusations. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term."

[Return to Top]

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News