What New 2006 Candidates Should Do Next In Fighting Crime.

Grab a cup, this one’s a little long.

___________________________

Crime is not fought by compelling citizens to adapt more to policies that don’t work – crime is fought on an instance by instance basis at the first line of defense.

As always, upcoming elections mean possible change. As I’ve written previously, conservatives are increasingly aware of so-called stealth candidates, those who had in the past been called RINO’s – Republican In Name Only – who are now bolder about surrendering and betraying conservative values for which they were elected.

It’s as if Republicans had elected Liberals.

In one selected talk I give, I urge individuals to turn themselves on. This is to take your conservative values and convictions and to share them proudly – not to proselytize, but to share – in contacting other Americans of like mind.

Partisan?

There is certainly nothing wrong with being partisan – conservatives aren’t partisan enough – so the partisan liberals eat our lunch every day; The problem is in part a failure to be partisan, yes, and in conservative officials, the problem is more of not sticking to it without compromise any longer, now compounding the lack of partisanship. We have come to regret compromise, abused for our cooperation, and only through such contact with others – comparing notes, I like to say – did Americans win the 2004 election.

Comparing notes is the core of Talkradio, and it played a very big part in Americans’ coming to realize that conservative values were not partisan nor extreme, but mainstream. This is terribly important to know.

What has been thought to be conservative values is actually mainstream values.

America is not liberal: America is kind, generous and compassionate almost to a fault, but that is not democrat nor liberal: it is a mainstream value.

Let mainstream Americans go on to win the next elections and the next.

On the platforms of these upcoming elections, violent crime will be, as usual, one of the planks.

Here’s how it ought to go down.

States who suffer violent crime also have unreasonable restraints or punishment on individual citizens – honest citizens – in resisting violent crime. This is to keep the crisis alive. It is the socio-political equivalent of your school punishing fighting instead of punishing bullying when known bullies dominate the campus, including the staff.

Horrible crisis requires political solution, and as long as the crisis is alive, the continued need for the (ineffective) solution. An effective solution would solve the problem. One example of ineffective answer is zero-tolerance: it silences the debate and averts justice, punishing the innocent, losing them in the shuffle.

Time to look at solutions which do work. Time to try a mainstream solution: examining the successes of other states on the subject of crime and on what works.

Part of our national problem is that anti-crime policies are now encroaching on our liberties, and specific civil rights are on one end of the balance like never before, as high technology brings many of these to crescendo. One example is how our personal privacy and sovereignty suffer in the name of anti-crime policies, each asking just a little more sovereignty out of our purse with no real results as promised. Not ever.

With wiretaps, spying and other important changes such as National ID Cards, why pay for it in sovereignty if it’s just the next in a long line of solutions that won’t work?

Our personal sovereignty is not the coin of the realm in purchasing national security: it is the best tool for ensuring homeland security, having already purchased our security generations ago; confiscating personal sovereignty only ensures the life of the crisis.

Privacy prevents abuse, mistake and retaliation. It is part of our sovereignty and way of life. Genuinely believing that we even can purchase homeland security with coins of sovereignty is to fall into a trap.

One solution – living by mainstream values – is popular in two-thirds of the states of the union already. Is this mainstream enough? Or is life somehow different in the big cities? Yeah, right.

Interesting how gun-free zones and high crime rates are so bi-coastal. In right-to-carry states, mostly the frontier states, there isn’t the same crime rate. Maybe there isn’t as great an affluence in 38 states of the union as the hoity-toity coastal states. There, security is not a commodity to be mined out of some public land for political prestige: it is already owned by every citizen in America. Stealing it is a transfer of wealth.

This answer that works so well in the right-to-carry states is not by encroachment on individual sovereignty, as there is in Washington, D.C., in Kalifornia and in New Yolk, but by respect for the civil rights of their electorate, summoning a dependency on the People, you might say, as opposed to compelling and cultivating a dependency on officials. And it’s looking more mainstream every day.

Two-thirds of the states of the union have some form of concealed carry of weapons. Some states have no requirement for permits at all. Is this their secret? It's certainly been a solution to the question of balancing civil rights with personal and community safety. There, in 38 states of the union, they do not believe in purchasing safety by throwing sovereignty at the problem. They fortify safety by respecting the sovereignty of the individual.

I won’t bore you with stats I’ve said before, so let me say simply that concealed carry works because personal sovereignty works. It's one of the best kept secrets in the anti-gun, anti-liberty movement.

Communities also need to remember that police have no mandate to protect individuals, not anywhere in the United States. Paramedics early on in the EMS development knew that they cannot be everywhere with a life-saving response time; they urged citizen training in CPR and First-aid. Today, it's part of any community disaster preparedness plan. Many states, such as New Hampshire in their House Bill 1639-FN, believe so very much that the citizen is the first line of defense that they wish to make it a felony to confiscate guns during an emergency, as was done in New Orleans.

First responders cannot always arrive with that life-saving response time; Police have no mandate to protect individuals; Citizens already have the authority we need to act in self-defense, and the target or victim as the first line of defense is in the best position of all to keep the matter from escalating to a completed act of violence.

Americans have little to fear from honest constituents carrying weapons and we’ve seen what happens when the bad guys carry them unanswered; The highest crime rates in the nation.

But this cognizance needs to make its way to where it’s needed most: the states where sovereignty is owned by citizens, but mined as a commodity without their consent nevertheless.

What the new candidates should consider in fighting crime is untying the hands of their constituents for the sake of respecting their sovereignty.

More sovereignty: more privacy, more restored liberty and restored personal authority, more armed citizens: It sounds so extremist, I know, but it’s actually a mainstream value.

Because Household is a mainstream value.

And a proven tool for national security.
____________________________

John Longenecker is author of Transfer Of Wealth. His website is www.TransferOfWealth.net