History . . .

. . . can teach . . .

(http://www.salon.com/2013/01/14/the_nra_once_supported_gun_control/)
". . . For nearly a century after, its founding in 1871, the National Rifle Association was among America’s foremost pro-gun control organizations. It was not until 1977 when the NRA that Americans know today emerged, after libertarians who equated owning a gun with the epitome of freedom and fomented widespread distrust against government—if not armed insurrection—emerged after staging a hostile leadership coup. . . In the years since, an NRA that once encouraged better markmanship and reasonable gun control laws gave way to an advocacy organization and political force that saw more guns as the answer to society’s worst violence, whether arming commercial airline pilots after 9/11 or teachers after the Newtown, while opposing new restrictions on gun usage.. . It is hard to believe that the NRA was committed to gun-control laws for most of the 20th century—helping to write most of the federal laws restricting gun use until the 1980s. . . “Historically, the leadership of the NRA was more open-minded about gun control than someone familiar with the modern NRA might imagine,” wrote Adam Winkler, a Second Amendment scholar at U.C.L.A. Law School, in his 2011 book, Gunfight: The Battle Over The Right To Bear Arms In America. “The Second Amendment was not nearly as central to the NRA’s identity for most of the organization’s history.”. . ."

What do you think?
Tell me at
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html  or at
http://www.ohomusic.com 

My latest solo offering, No Frills, is now available at - No Frills

(To Access all Ray Jozwiak - Gonzo Piano music you can copy-and-paste this URL directly to
your browser:  http://http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/RayJozwiak)

Get your copy of OHO's  Where Words Do Not Reach now!
The Ocean City Ditty Video is now on YouTube
Also, be sure to visit: www.rayjozwiak.com and www.ohomusic.com

Tweet  

Enough. . .

. . . is enough!!! 

(from the Denver Post)
". . . On Thursday, the Senate voted 96-3 in favor of new restrictions designed to keep lawmakers from trading stocks based on inside information gleaned from their legislative roles. Democratic Sens. Michael Bennet and Mark Udall supported the bill.The measure also would ban legislators from sharing insider knowledge with others who would make trades on it. In addition, federal lawmakers would be required to disclose their trading activity. The measures also would apply to some members of the executive branch. No doubt, it's a good thing. It's also an idea that has been kicking around since 2006. But it wasn't until "60 Minutes" and others in the media recently began reporting on the issue that it was put on the fast track in Congress. . . "

(from Jack Abramoff: Members Of Congress Engaged In Insider Trading Doug Mataconis)
". . . This is the kind of thing that only serves to increase public cynicism about government, of course. It strikes me that if it’s illegal for a corporate officer to engage in stock trades based on information that comes to him based on his position, it should be illegal for a Member of Congress or a member of his staff to do this same. The legal position that the information they base their decisions on is “public” because its in Congress is a legal fiction. In reality, as noted above, these people have knowledge about the timing of legislation and hearings, and the likelihood that a particular bill with pass that an ordinary investor does not. It’s either all illegal, or not [none] of it is. . . "

Vote them ALL OUT this election!!!

What do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html

 
Download your
very own copy of
ANOTHER SHOT
by Ray Jozwiak

Please Visit
http://www.rayjozwiak.com

Tweet

"The First Amendment. . .

. . .DOES NOT bar religion from the public square and from government in general. Under the First Amendment, the resulting separation of Church and State puts restrictions on government but does not put restrictions on religion. . ."

(reaction to a recent blog by Howard Bess. See bottom)
The good Reverend seems to hit it on the head on a regular basis. He says that the current crop of republican presidential candidates, as well as the media 'reporting' on them, all miss the boat on their interpretation of the First Amendment. He would like to know how the religion of the candidates informs their views and intentions with regard to the following issues. "As president, would the candidate pursue the teachings of his religion?"

WAR AND PEACE - religions generally favor a path toward peace

POPULATION CONTROL, BIRTH CONTROL, AND ABORTION SERVICES - how long will the earth be able to sustain the needs of this huge (and growing) population so highly encouraged by their right to life 'philosophy'?

FULL RIGHTS FOR GAY, LESBIAN, TRANSGENDERED AND BISEXUAL PERSONS - many/most organized religions do not favor these just and necessary rights

PRESERVATION OF THE INTEGRITY OF THE WORLD’S ENVIRONMENT - what will the candidate do when scientific knowledge directly confronts the teachings of his religion?

PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATION - parochial schools have been known to practice discrimination

PROVISION FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE LESS FORTUNATE - entitlements and being 'thy brother's keeper'

The Rev. Howard Bess is a retired American Baptist minister, who lives in Palmer, Alaska. His email address is HYPERLINK "mailto:hdbss@mtaonline.net" hdbss@mtaonline.net

I HIGHLY RECOMMEND READING HIM!




What do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html


Download your
very own copy of
ANOTHER SHOT
by Ray Jozwiak

Please Visit
http://www.rayjozwiak.com


Tweet


Top Stories