Massad Ayoob - THE DESPAIR OF THE ONE-ISSUE VOTER

I try to stay out of politics. Ain’t my job. Here at Backwoods Home, I’m the resident gun guy, and because I’m the only staffer who also works in the criminal justice system, I sometimes go there too.

A hugely important Presidential election looms upon us. The next four years will see new appointments to the United States Supreme Court, with obviously great implications for those of us who believe in the Constitution and have sworn an oath to uphold it. As has been discussed here before, the one-issue voter isn’t necessarily wearing blinders. Rather, he or she recognizes that no citizen can be on top of every critical issue in our society, but our leaders must be. Therefore, we pick one issue we DO know inside and out, and use that as the litmus test to determine the candidate’s reasonableness, fairness, and logic in the other matters we will vote to entrust to him or her.

This is not to say that we don’t have other issues which are important to us. I am sadly watching the Republican Party, whose platform is much closer to my One Combined Issue of the civil rights of gun owners and the right to self-defense, walk perilously close to the cliff of unelectability on other issues. 47% of people voting for Obama so they can suck on the public teat? I know a lot of taxpayers who are very productive to our society who are going to vote to re-elect the current President for other reasons.

It’s not my place to talk about those things here. It is my place to talk about my corner of the Backwoods Home blogs. In those areas, the choice is starkly clear.

The Democratic Party has chosen to support a reinstatement, presumably permanent this time, of the totally failed and Draconian “assault weapons ban” dumped on us for a decade by Bill Clinton when he was President. Don’t believe me? Look here: http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform

The Republican Party, on the other hand, isn’t buying that crap and instead, is for the first time endorsing national reciprocity for concealed carry, that is, the right to carry a loaded, concealed handgun in every state to protect yourself and your family when you’re traveling. Don’t believe me? Look here: http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/.

Yeah, I know: “the lesser of two evils.” There are two ways to look at that. One, of course, is that “the lesser of two evils is still evil.” Cynical pragmatist that the decades have made me, I go with the other view: “the lesser of two evils is still…LESS EVIL.”

For the one issue voter, if the issue is gun owners’ civil rights and the right to protect self and family, Romney is the indisputable choice.

Massad Ayoob

Massad F. Ayoob is an internationally known firearms and self-defense instructor.

Massad Ayoob has authored several books and more than 1,000 articles on firearms, combat techniques, self-defense, and legal issues, and has served in an editorial capacity for Guns Magazine, American Handgunner, Gun Week, and Combat Handguns.

Massad Ayoob was former Vice Chairman of the Forensic Evidence Committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), and is believed to be the only non-attorney ever to hold this position.

http://massadayoobgroup.com/

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Michael Brown - Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem

We all know about the shocking, Democratic waffling on the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s (undivided) capital in the current party platform. But there’s another important issue that no one seems to be talking about: If Jerusalem is really Israel’s capital, why haven’t we moved our embassy there?

To be sure, this is not the first time that Jerusalem has been at the center of controversy. Twenty-five hundred years ago, when the returning Jewish exiles were attempting to rebuild the city, their opponents sent a letter of warning to the king of Persia. (At that time, Judah was a province of Persia). “Be it known to the king,” the letter stated, “that the Jews who came up from you to us have gone to Jerusalem. They are rebuilding that rebellious and wicked city. They are finishing the walls and repairing the foundations. Now be it known to the king that if this city is rebuilt and the walls finished, they will not pay tribute, custom, or toll, and the royal revenue will be impaired.” (Ezra 4:12-13)

They even urged the king “that search may be made in the book of the records of your fathers. You will find in the book of the records and learn that this city is a rebellious city, hurtful to kings and provinces, and that sedition was stirred up in it from of old. That was why this city was laid waste.” (Ezra 4:15)

How interesting that more than two-and-a-half millennia ago, Jerusalem had a bad reputation (at least to its enemies). It was already branded “rebellious and wicked,” a hotbed of sedition, and a bane to rulers and nations.

The warning even went one step further: “We make known to the king that if this city is rebuilt and its walls finished, you will then have no possession in the province Beyond the River” (Ezra 4:16) In other words, once the Jews rebuild Jerusalem, you will lose the entire province of Judah in Trans Euphrates.

Five hundred years later, Jesus himself referred to Jerusalem as “the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it!” (Matthew 23:37) And the ancient prophet Zechariah predicted that at the end of the age, “all the nations of the earth will gather against it.” (Zechariah 12:3)

But as fascinating as these texts are, given the current controversy about the status of Jerusalem, they do not answer the question I have raised: From a political perspective (as opposed to a biblical perspective), why haven’t we moved our embassy to Jerusalem? If we truly recognize it as the undivided capital of Israel, as affirmed now in both party platforms, why haven’t we relocated our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem?

Considering the fact that Jews have been saying, “Next year in Jerusalem” for the last 20 centuries, it’s no surprise that Jerusalem was declared Israel’s capital in 1950. And the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, “passed by overwhelming bipartisan majority in both the House and Senate,” states that “Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel and the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.”

We have now passed the 13th anniversary of that Congressional deadline, and yet our embassy remains in Tel Aviv (along with the embassies of virtually all other countries that recognize the State of Israel). How has this happened? As noted on the United with Israel website, “since the congressional act allows the President to implement a waiver at six-month intervals, that’s exactly what has happened every six months since 1995.”

But why? Why pass the Jerusalem Embassy Act – note that word “Embassy” – in such overwhelming, bipartisan fashion and then not move the embassy? Even Ron Paul, not known as a staunch supporter of Israel, once said, “If Israel wants their capital to be Jerusalem, then the United States should honor that. How would we like it if some other nation said, ‘We decided to recognize New York City as your capital instead, so we will build our embassy there’?”

In 2008, candidate Obama declared that any agreement with the Palestinians “must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state with secure, recognized, defensible borders. And Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided.”

In July, candidate Romney declared, “A nation has the capacity to choose its own capital city, and Jerusalem is Israel's capital. I think it’s long been the policy to ultimately have our embassy in the nation's capital of Jerusalem.” And now, both party platforms reaffirm Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

So why not move the embassy? Mr. Obama (or Mr. Romney), will you do it? If not, why not?

Dr. Michael Brown

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and is the author of 20 books. He has served as a professor at a number of seminaries and hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.