Christopher Hall

One can't expect any meaningful discussion of such an issue in a country where a significant percentage of the population know little about history, presidential or otherwise. To give you a stark but, I fear, representative example of America's informed citizenry, "American Idol" winner Kelli Pickler is now a hot country music star. There's a video clip online of her appearing as a celebrity contestant on some TV game show. She is asked, "Budapest is the capitol of what European country?" After hemming and hawing, she says, "I thought that Europe was a country." Then she says, "Buda-pest. I've never heard of it." That is an illuminating commentary on youth and on society in general. I have often joked that many people could not identify their governor, senators, or Congressman, but can easily tell you who are the remaining contestants on American Idol or who was last voted off the island on Survivor. Don't believe me? Just go to the mall and start asking people. They have no clue as to the meaning of "we the people". This year's Presidential election will be a protracted American Idol-style beauty contest.

I received my DVD from Amazon today, and I am going to plug it in tonight. I plan to buy and read the book when it is released.

Well put. I feel safer now that Arlen is on the case.

I thought that yesterday's rally with Oprah, Maria, Caroline and Michelle Obama was pretty impressive. I think that Obama pretty much personifies liberal values and that HRC personifies the hardball politics of greed, heavy-handedness (think: WACO) and character assassination. I hope that Obama is still in the running on Wednesday.

So you think all the polls showing that a slight – significant majority of Americans support stricter gun control are incorrect and congress knows this? I am saying that Dems control both houses of Congress and, if they thought they could pass gun control measures and politically survive, they would do so. They remember being led down the primrose path on this issue in 1994, and they don't wish to repeat it. A recent poll asked people "If you agreed with a political candidate on other issues, but not on the issue of gun control, could you still vote for that candidate, or not?" 60% said they “could” 31% said they “could not”, I believe most of the people who said they “could not” were anti-gun control. Maybe, maybe not. We won't find out until someone runs for President with gun control as a platform plank. If you believe these polls that you site, why did John Kerry pander so effusively to gun owners in 2004 instead of standing on his voting record on gun issues? It wasn't because he thought that 51-61% of voters wanted stronger gun control laws. http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm Anti-gun control people tend to be more focused on the issue than people who support it also the gun lobby is very powerful. As a Pennsylvania state representative put it "We know based on independent polling that most Pennsylvanians support stronger gun control laws. The question is where on those persons' priority list of issues does gun safety rank, as opposed to where on the list of the gun advocates. ... The other side are single-issue voters and that carries a lot of weight." http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07329/836651-85.stm If you are quoting someone, you may want to give us his name. Particularly if you want us to buy into his assertion that "most Pennsylvanians support stronger gun control laws. " Let me guess, is he by any chance a liberal state rep. from Philly? And if he thinks that his statement is true, how many Pa. gun control laws has he supported and how many have passed? A 1981 survey found that gun control opponents were “markedly more likely to respond” they had donated money and/or written letters concerning the issue http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7162...TOR-enlargePage Sorry, Len, it wasn't the pro-Second Amendment group that had a Million Mom March. And, by the way, don't you think that a 1981 survey is a little stale? All the above might well be so but as above the pro-gun people tend to be more dedicated to the issue than pro-gun control people. Several gun control measures passed in recent years, I doubt I follow the issue as closely as you do but I don’t know of any that failed. I don't know of any Federal gun control measures that have passed in many years, and many states have adopted laws which mandate the issuance of carry permits to people who meet objective qualifications. As a matter of fact, there has been a strong trend in that area, and I think that now there are 37 - 38 states with "shall issue" carry permit statutes. I can get back to you on that with a more specific answer, but there has been an incredible trend in that direction, with (I believe) Missouri being the lastest state to adopt a "shall issue" statute. When Congress voted on renewing the 1994 Clinton Assault Weapons Ban, it was voted down in both chambers, which is good because GWB said he would sign it if Congress passed it. And there is always a bill to require a background check for private gun sales (i.e. an individual to another individual), but it never even makes it to the floor because it would fail. Then there is H.R. 1022, introduced by Carolyn McCarth (D. NY) in February, 2007, which is directed at re-authorizing and augmenting the scope of the 1994 Clinton Assault Weapons Ban, but it has gone nowhere over the course of the last year. So, these polls notwithstanding, gun control legislation is not at all consistent with them. I didn’t say “the 2nd Amendment (or Bill of Rights) doesn’t apply to state and local laws” but if you studied constitutional law you’d know that the Bill of Rights didn’t apply to state or local laws and regulations till the ratification of the 14th amendment in 1868 the relevant portion of which reads: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” it’s been 20 years since I studied this but several cases have hinged on the issue of whether this extended Bill of Rights protections in toto to the state level. One of those cases was Presser v. Illinois, in 1886 (i.e. 18 years after the 14th Amendment) in which they ruled that “that the Amendment was not binding on the states” according to a blog published by Supreme Court attorneys which also indicated that was the last time they examined the issue. The same entry indicated that the court held in a 1939 case the 2nd Amendment only guaranteed a collective right but that might be reviewed in a pending case (District of Columbia v. Heller).* Before 1868 state governments could “outlaw local newspapers, with no effect given to the First Amendment.” * http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized...le-on-gun-case/ Your reference to Constitutional history from the 19th century is interesting, but of historical value only. You are not really saying that the Bill of Rights can be statutorily overridden by a state general assembly, are you? The 1939 case is U.S. v. Miller, in which the defendant didn't show up for SCOTUS arguments. Nonetheless, the Court held that the Second Amendment applies to weapons that would be used by a militia, and that a sawed off shotgun was not such a weapon and was, therefore, subject to the Firearms Act of 1934. Ironically, this case would support the argument that an AR-15 would not be subject to regulation by Congress, because it is a military-style weapon, but that a 22 revolver may possible be since it is not a military-style weapon. The current case, Heller v. D.C., is scheduled for SCOTUS arguments in March, I believe. In any case even before the 14th Amendment the “supremacy clause” (article VI paragraph 2) guaranteed that the “Constitution, and the laws of the United States ...anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” So what on earth did you mean when you said "And when you get to state and local laws there is the issue of how much the 2nd Ammendment applies to them via the 14th"? Then how did you miss all the numerous polls over the last few decades which have consistently show a majority support for gun control. Please cite the part of the Federalist Papers which indicated the “framers” intended the 2nd Amendment to guarantee private citizens the unfretted and unregulated right to own any kind of weapon independent of “a well regulated militia”. If that’s what they meant why did they add that phrase to the amendment? Len- No one thinks the Second Amendment is well-worded, but the introductory phrase is not framed as a condition to the individual right to keep and bear arms. In any event, the remainder of the Second Amendment is quite clear. The Bill of Rights is a recitation of individual rights. Don't you think that it is rather strange that the frames of the Constitution would have included something that was intended to apply to the states in the Bill of Rights? And what is a collective right? It's no right at all. It's just a power allocated to a state, but certainly not a right. It is incongruous to think that the founding fathers would have put such an allocation of power to a state in the middle of the Bill of Rights. Also, a militia at the time the Second Amendment was adopted, was distinguishable from armed forces, which were referred to as a standing army. I will try to find some guidance from the Federalist Papers on original intent. I have read it before, and I don't have it handy. I agree with you on that I was a member of the ACLU for many years and even helped reestablish it at Oberlin College. However I interpret the 2nd Amendment differently than you do. Yes, we do. But to square your interpretation of it, you have to believe that the drafters of the Constitution included a grant of power to the states in the Bill of Rights (for individual rights) and ignore "shall not be infringed".

Gun shows do not necessarily represent a typical cross section of the American public, and I didn't imply that in my post. You seemed to indicate that was a sign of the strength of his support. I imagine if I went to a convention that mostly attracted left leaning Democrats before he dropped out I would have seen mostly Kucinich buttons. No, never had the urge and I don’t think they have many in NYC and Boston, the cities I lived in when I was in the US. I say that on the authority of numerous opinion polls published over the years that show this. If you’ve followed the issue closely it must have only been on anti-gun control sites. Thought support for stricter gun control has gone down recent polls still show 50 – 61 % of the population still supports it ( with 49 - 37 % opposed). Support for controls on handguns and assault rifles is even higher. Interestingly support for controls on the later is about equal for Democrats, Republicans and independents. http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm Even Republicans are equally split among those who support and oppose stricter gun control (35 % each) according to a 2004 Harris Poll http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_po...dex.asp?PID=471 I think it’s both. The First Amendment says (in part) “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” but restrictions on speech have been passed; you can’t (as is the cliché example) yell “fire” in a movie theater nor threaten to kill some one etc. As for the Second Amendment it (as I assume you know) reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This would seem to indicate that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is in the context of “a well regulated militia”; though I agree with my constitutional law professor from college that due to its ambiguity that is the worst written sentence in the Constitution. EDIT - Added underlining If there is truly a slight majority in public support for stricter gun laws, you would see more support for such laws in Congress. GWB has said that he would sign an assault weapons ban, but we haven't seen Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid advancing any such legislation. As a matter of fact, when asked about the need for stricter gun control laws on the night of the Va. Tech shooting, Harry Reid declined to go on record for such legislation. The fact of the matter is that both of them, along with most Democrats, want no part of gun control, because they believe that it will endanger their party's chances of keeping control. As WJC noted in his 1995 SOTU address, some of the Dems who supported the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban were not in the audience as a result of their support for it. Gore made it an issue in the first part of his campaign, and then abandoned it in the summer of 2000, because he found that it was costing him support in some key states (Ohio and Pa, I think). Kerry didn't show up for a photo op in camo, carrying a dead bird, because most Americans in 2004 were for stricter gun control. By this fall, we will probably see HRC in camo going squirrel hunting. The Dems regard this issue as radioactive. "And when you get to state and local laws there is the issue of how much the 2nd Ammendment applies to them via the 14th." This is just plain wrong. If it were correct, then state laws would preempt all of the other parts of the Constitution, and, by way of example, a state could outlaw local newspapers, with no effect given to the First Amendment. "If you’ve followed the issue closely it must have only been on anti-gun control sites." No, I read sites on both sides of the debate. "I think it’s both. The First Amendment says (in part) “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” but restrictions on speech have been passed; you can’t (as is the cliché example) yell “fire” in a movie theater nor threaten to kill some one etc. " Len- The policy debate on the Bill of Rights took place over 200 years ago and is largely manifested in the Federalist Papers, which reference that the intent of the Second Amendment is to protect citizens from a tyrranical Federal government. The Federalist Papers do not reflect any intent whatsoever to authorize gun cotrol. And I am for a liberal interpretation of all of the Bill of Rights in favor of the citizens whom they were designed to protect. I don't want the Federal or state governments abridging any of my rights as a citizen.

I find it quite surprising that you don’t see signs for any other candidates in Knoxville, he only about 2% of Tennessee Republicans say they will vote for him. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...rimary-541.html Even in nearby South Carolina he got less than 4% of the vote http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...rimary-233.html . I doubt that the gun show crowd represents a typical cross section of the American public, most of who support stricter gun control. Len- I find it surprising to see so many Ron Paul signs, to the exclusion of any other signs for Presidential candidates, but I think that it reflects the strength of the grassroot movement which opposes business as usual in D. C. I expect to see a few other Presidential candidates' signs as Super Tuesday approaches. "I doubt that the gun show crowd represents a typical cross section of the American public, most of who support stricter gun control." Gun shows do not necessarily represent a typical cross section of the American public, and I didn't imply that in my post. Have you ever been to a gun show? Also, what is your authority for saying that most Amercians support stricter gun control? I haven't seen any such statistic, and I follow the issue closely. But this is a Constitutional issue, and not a policy issue. Ron Paul has many policy positions which are repugnant to many conservatives, as he does with respect to liberals, but I think that he, unlike most other politicians, believes in the primacy of the Constitution.

He might have the right views on Iraq but he has extreme right-wing views on other issues. For example, see my page on the John Birch Society: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbirchS.htm Here is a quote from Ron Paul on the John Birch Society:"The beneficial, educational impact of the John Birch Society over the past four decades would be hard to overestimate. It is certainly far more than most people realize. Anyone who has been in the trenches over the years battling on any of the major issues - whether it’s pro-life, gun rights, property rights, taxes, government spending, regulation, national security, privacy, national sovereignty, the United Nations, foreign aid - knows that members of the John Birch Society are always in there doing the heavy lifting. And most importantly, they approach all of these issues from a strong moral and constitutional perspective. Lots of people pay lip service to the Constitution, but Birchers study it, understand it, apply it, and are serious about protecting it and holding public officials accountable to it." Haroldson L. Hunt and Clint Murchison were both members of the John Birch Society. So also was John Rousselot who has been accused of being involved in the assassination of JFK. In January 2008, James Kirchick of The New Republic published a story detailing the contents of several issues of the Ron Paul newsletter. His article concluded that Paul was an "angry white man", asserting that the newsletter showed "an obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays", attacked Martin Luther King Jr. and offered "kind words" for David Duke. John- Are you trying to say imply Ron Paul is somehow connected to the JFK assassination? That's what it looks like you're doing, albeit with some type of "Six Degrees of Separation" approach. If you're not, then why include the bolded language? I have serious policy issues with respect to Paul, but I would rather have someone whose view of the Constitution I trust (based on what I know about him) and argue over policy issues than someone who champions policies that I support but who regards the Constitution as an outdate piece of paper or, worse, a "living" document subject to any type of interpretation that a reviewing court decides. I believe that the Constitution (as it has been amended) should be interpreted in accordance with its original intent.

There are significant differences between HRC and Obama, but most of them arise in the area of character. HRC's values and positions are determined by her political handlers, because she is bankrupt in the character department. Obama's values come from his long-held beliefs, but I fear that many of his positions are similarly directed by his political consultants. I am against most things Obama is for and for most things he is against, but he seems to have genuine beliefs which form his moral compass. By contrast, HRC has no moral compass or core beliefs and is the classic empty suit. I am hopeful that Ron Paul will run as an independent, because I will probably vote for him if he does. The only Presidential race signs that I see in my city are Ron Paul signs. At the gun show I attended yesterday, there were an abundance of Ron Paul buttons, with no buttons, signs or stickers for any other candidate. He has an incredible grass roots following, which will survive and continue long after the election. As for me, I hope that any new party which follows Paul or his principles is named either the Federalist Party or the Consitution Party.

It's interesting that RFK, Jr., Kerry Kennedy, and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend all endorsed HRC a couple of months ago: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/16/...olitics_3623528 Good for Caroline in making her own decisions.

I have no idea. Do you think that would affect the credebility of the report one way or the other? If you don’t like the conclusions it reached you should try showing that it’s wrong rather than worry about who paid for it. I haven't read the whole thing yet but it seems very solid. Of course I think that the source and funding of a study may well affect its credibility. Do you think that it couldn't? Maybe it did in this case, maybe it didn't. A couple of nights ago, I watched a show on Jack Ruby (Mobsters, on the Bio Channel, I think). I was excited, until I noticed that the primary authority for a good bit of the info on Ruby was Gerald Posner. I took a lot of what I heard from him with the proverbial grain of salt, because he has a vested interest in propagating his LN tripe and his book. I certainly would look askance at a study of the JFK assassination funded or sponsored by Posner or VB. As a matter of fact, I recently purchased Case Closed, and I plan to read it. I expect it to appear solid to someone who hasn't spent a good deal of time studying the assassination, because I expect him to present evidence in a manner which is designed to point me to his desired conclusion. Soros has a remarkable amount of money and an agenda. If he hadn't spent so much money advancing his agenda, I would be less concerned about its objectivity. Money can frequently buy results and sycophants. As much as I loathe "bipartisan studies (i.e. whitewashes), I distrust partisan ones.

I am fairly wary of a lot of CT sites, because their sensationalist (doomsday) delivery makes me think that there is a lot of embellishment going on. Nonetheless, I found the part of Epstein's site relating to a possible correlation between the 911 hijackings and crashes to be quite plausible. As I recall, the letters to the choice Senators were not described by the media has having any Muslim overtones whatsoever, but, acoording to Epstein, they concluded with the ever-popular "Allah Ahkbar". He also states that (a) 1 or 2 of the Flight 93 hijackers had been treated at a Ft. Lauderdale hospital for a black lesion, which apparently resembles Antrhax infection, 2 or 3 months before 911, and ( the Aimes strain had to have been somehow purloined from a secure lab (i.e. through some kind of employee/terrorist infiltration, apparently). If that is true, it certainly makes the Anthrax dissemination and 911 appear to be parts of an integrated plan of attack.. It's interesting stuff, in any event.

Isn't this the study that George Soros funded?

The movie will actually re-ignite public interest in the assassination history and, hence, some public debate on the LN - CT dispute. Castro will be dead by 2010, so it won't hurt his feelings if the government releases documents that it still holds as classified, which confirm our efforts to kill him. To me, the government's refusal to release all documentation relating to the JFK assassination is the number one point that we need to drive home to the public. If it happened as VB says, then why doesn't the government release its (theoretically confirmatory records)?

Kucinich no longer (as if he ever had) has any chance of becoming the Dem nominee, why waste the debate time? Ya, Craig, why even bother to hold an election at all? Dawn Excuse me? The reason he's toast is because the voters don't want him. You think another debate will put him in contention? Look how well he did in Michigan .... I think the voters know exactly who he is and what he stands for and they are NOT voting for him in droves. Like it or not there comes a time to cut the wheat from the chaff. I see both sides of this issue. While letting low-visibility candidates participate in debates might waste time better used getting to know the other candidates, they should not be excluded until at least, say 20% of the voters have been heard from. To exclude candidates based on poor performances in New Hampshire and Iowa is RIDICULOUS. Ron Paul has, to date, received far more votes than Giuliani and Thompson. FAUX News had no business excluding him from the debate. It was shameful. Actually, the lower visibility candidates have nothing to lose and are, as a result, more apt to give honest answers and let the chips fall where they may. The front runners are so scripted, handled and made up that they have rehearsed answers to virtually any question. In most instances, they have a planned answer, irrespective of the particulars of the question. Not so with the lower tier candidates. They don't answer to the party powers that be, top flight political consultants and lobbyists. They can say whatever they want. They certainly create more drama and can provoke the front runners to more specifically address matters that they want to avoid. A candidate who is polling at 30% is typically concerned about dropping to 20% (as Rudy (remember him?)), but a candidate polling at 3% doesn't worry about dropping to 2%.

Thanks for picking up on this, Peter. I certainly haven't seen anything in the news or on blogs/news aggregators yet. The mendacity of the Clintons is beyond comparison, but this is, by all means, consistent with their scorched earth history (e.g. siccing the IRS on Paula Jones, who made $20,000 per year at the time of her lawsuit against WJC). I've seen and read a few articles about both of these issues in the MSM. Both stories were headline stories on the online MSNBC. So have I, now, and I am happy to see the story get some traction. I didn't see Peter's source, but I try to avoid the Peacock Network.

I could agree...or I could post a photo...while of Bush the corrupt, the elder..no matter....I'll post the photo..... Peter- You should really warn us before you post pictures of sexual predators (WJC). I doubt that RFK, Jr. will investigate the NH primary, like he did the Ohio 2004 vote, because Kerry Kennedy, RFK, Jr. and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend are supporting HRC. It's really rather sad that this is what the Kennedy family has come to represent.

Thanks for picking up on this, Peter. I certainly haven't seen anything in the news or on blogs/news aggregators yet. The mendacity of the Clintons is beyond comparison, but this is, by all means, consistent with their scorched earth history (e.g. siccing the IRS on Paula Jones, who made $20,000 per year at the time of her lawsuit against WJC).

I wish that he and Andrea Mitchell would go away and leave us all alone. I am tired of him and his ego, which is almost in the same league as the Donald's. Do these people really think we care about their opinions on anything?

I got quite a chuckle out of PM engaging Scotland Yard. What next, the LAPD?

Shane- I googled "Sirhan's gun" and was led to an article by Mel Ayton in which he roundly criticizes your conclusions re the RFK assassination. I also read your well-articulated rebuttle to his allegations. I noticed that he had authored what appears to be a LN book on the JFK assassination, which, from my perspective, torpedos his credibility in general. Do you care to offer any comments on him? I read Front Page Magazine once or twice a week, but I don't recall whether I have read anything by him. Obviously, if it related to an assassination, I would likely remember him. Also, on the issue of the "double fire" by Sirhan's gun (and perhaps someone else's gun), it is interesting that some fairly expert shooters (e.g. the legendary Jerry Miculek) can do extremely rapid "double taps" with a revolver, which seem impossible they are so fast. Shooting double taps from a semi-auto is easy, although doing so with accuracy is, of course, more difficult. However, I have handled, but not shot, the vaunted Iver Johnson 22 revolver, and I doubt that a non-expert shooter would be able to pull off anything approaching a rapid "double tap" from it. I don't want to find out badly enough to buy one and try it, even though they are pretty cheap at gun shows. And I also don't buy the allegation by Ayton that a few deputies fouled (by leading up) the barrel of Sirhan's gun by shooting a few "souvenier" rounds through it. Lastly, didn't the door or door frame, which allegely had several rounds in it, disappear? Kind of like the front door of the Branch Dividian compound in Waco. When evidence disappears, while in the hands of law enforcement (the FBI in the Waco incident), I conclude that there is likely a cover-up. The burden of proving that a cover-up did not occur shifts strongly to the other side. I plan to buy your DVD and watch it soon. Thanks for your work.

I would like to understand why she's being called corrupt by so many people. Anyone willing to elaborate on that? I will try to find a post a link or 2. I don't take what I read as gospel, and I don't vouch for its accuracy. It's hard to not like what she appeared to represent to the Pakistani people.

The more I learn about the late BB, the less I like. I like what she appeared to represent for Pakistan, but she was, without a doubt, a pampered aristocrat, and, very possibly, the corrupt scion of a corrupt politacal family. I certainly liked her better than PM. Who benefits from all this? PM and the US. Moreover, PM is clearly a thug, but he is our thug. Take heart, though, Arlen Specter is in Pakistan and, presumably, on the job. Maybe PM can form a Blue Ribbon Panel to investigate the assassination and appoint Arlen (on loan from the Senate and Pa.) as its counsel, and we can leave it up to him to figure all of this out for us.

I agree, as long as the one party to which you refer is the lobbying industry.

Thanks, Peter. I appreciate the website and the teaser about the book.