Calling Senator Hagan! How 'bout them assault weapons? Do you support the Second Amendment?

It's not fun to get stood up.
It's rude, crude, and socially unacceptable.
With no explanation, no apology, no nothing.

But, as a talk show host, I guess I should expect that from some politicians.

Ya see, I host a conservative (dirty word, I guess) radio talk show out of North Carolina. And, as such, my co-hosts and I talk a lot of politics. Actually, it's more accurate to say that we talk a lot about the issues of the day, and that often is construed as "talking politics".

We interview, regularly, North Carolina's Third District Congressman Walter B. Jones. I recall two times when he failed to keep his appointment with us. One was when our phone system, unknown to us at the time, died about 10 minutes before he was scheduled to call in. Our fault.

On the other occasion, he simply didn't check his appointment book until the show ended. He called my cell as soon as he discovered what happened, apologized profusely, and said he'd call at any time and day we wanted...IF we still wanted to talk with him.
As I told him then, "no problem, Congressman". A nice guy. A southern gentleman. And, that, friends, I appreciate. Stuff happens.

Here's another story.

For more than a year, we at Live and Local with Raeford and Friends (WRHT-FM) have been trying to schedule U.S. Senator Kay Hagan, one of two senators representing North Carolina, for an on air interview. Each time we call or write, we get less than the time of day. We've tried by phone and by e-mail, and never got beyond Door Number 1. Until a week ago. I finally reached Door Number 4. Talked with a gent named Chris (as I recall). He said he handles the senator's appearances, but had "no record" of any of our attempts to book her on the show. He graciously said he'd schedule her appearance at "8:10 next Tuesday". Reminds me of the old "I'll gladly repay you next Tuesday if...."promise.

Well, we excitedly promoted the fact that she was coming on the show. For days, we promoted it. We asked our listeners to send us questions they would like answers to. We had good material ready for her. We had done our research.

At 8:10, we waited.

And, waited.

Still waiting.

Finally, at about 8:20, I found a "stand-in", and posed some of our/your questions. The response was not unlike what I would have expected had the good senator taken the time to actually keep her appointment.

And, that, my friends, is a sad commentary.

 

Check it out, at www.soundcloud.com/raefordandfriends

And, Senator, don't call us.

We'll call you.

Just hang around your phone and wait for that call.

Have a good day.

A Special Friend. A True Buddy. Not a lot of those out there.

 

 

First, I want to offer a special thank you to the folks at the Emergency veterinary clinic in Jacksonville (NC), to the caring staff at Onslow Animal Hospital, and to the special caregivers at the School of Veterinary Medicine at North Carolina State University.

Monday morning, as I was leaving for my morning talk radio gig, I didn't find one of our two dogs, SCUBA Dood, in his usual bed. Inside, where it’s warm. We have a special area complete with a doggie door to allow both of our dogs access to a fenced-in back yard. It gives them the chance to safely explore, when they want, and to find an outdoor corner when nature calls. SCUBA was lying on the ground, on his side, cold, wet. He was having what we later learned was a seizure. My wife, Robie, headed for the emergency clinic with our “child”, wrapped in towels to keep him warm. They stabilized SCUBA, and brought his body temperature…which had fallen to 90-degrees…back up.

 

(In case you're wondering about this strange name for a dog-SCUBA Dood- allow me to explain. You see, I have been an avid SCUBA diver since the mid-1960's, and have spent hundreds of hours underwater. When my bride-to-be, Robie, back in 2005 thought I needed a companion, I never would have thought I could become as hooked on a critter as I did with this little puppy, a puppy I named SCUBA Dood. Simply because I wanted a name that was as special and unique as he was).  

 

 

 

At our regular vet, Onslow Animal Hospital, they jumped on the case as soon as the door opened Monday morning. After a variety of tests, the vet said we needed a specialist, and sent us to NC State University's Veterinary School. Thank goodness there was not a lot of traffic, and I made the 125 mile trip in short order. The team went to work even before I could get my truck parked. There's something really special about people who provide medical care for our pets.

Unfortunately, the news is not so good for SCUBA. It appears that he has cancer, we learn late in the day. Something we could not have foreseen. In fact, he got a clean bill of health during his regular annual check in January, just a month before. Less than 24 hours earlier, on Sunday evening, he was running, playing, being his usual loving, comical self. An 8-year old miniature schnauzer with more personality than most people I know. And, more love than in all of the love story movies ever made. SCUBA's outgoing personality was infectious. No one could not like SCUBA.

It makes no difference what kind of mood I'm in, how tired I am, how tough the day has been, how difficult that humans have been. Makes no difference whether my boss was a troll or is a great guy. SCUBA was always at the door, barking, his little stub of a tail gyrating at about 100 WPS (Wags Per Second). And, when I opened the door, he'd come a runnin'. Those two front paws would soon be forcefully planted on my leg, begging...no, demanding...that I stop everything, put all issues on a back burner, and pet him. A request that was impossible to ignore, even if I had wanted to. An absolute pleasure to be around, this dog called SCUBA Dood.

Unfortunately, in spite of all of the care at all levels, the disease was too much. We have a void in our family today. We have memories, and I/we are better off to have experienced the love and companionship of one heckuva dog.
 
In closing, I want to remind all of us. Take the time to reach out to your loved ones, four legs or two. Take the time to talk with them, to listen to them, to love them. All too soon, it comes to an end.

 

-30-

                                                                               

Dump the Second Amendment to Save Gang Bangers

Want to drastically reduce illegal killings in the US?
Yeah, like who doesn't want to do that?
Want to virtually eliminate illegal gun-related murders?
Refer to second sentence.
I think that the murder rate in this country is ridiculously high. And, darn near out of control.
It doesn't have to be that way.
We could, as a nation of rational, liberal-minded, pacifists agree to dump that antiquated and pesky constitutional amendment in the Bill of Rights that guarantees that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
More than 80-million US citizens own more than 300-million guns. I need to add that those 80-million citizens are law abiding people who have killed fewer people than the late Ted Kennedy.
So, why not just take away their guns? That would stop the gun murders, right? Doubtful. And, no one will fall for this philosophy. Unless one subscribes to the philosophies of butt-kissing politicians who are trying to divert attention away from the political blunders of the current administration.
Those butt-kissers are doing everything they can to demonize law-abiding citizens, 80-million of us. In any other situation, those being demonized for no good reason, and with no justification, would be screaming discrimination. And, they would be right to do so.
If we want to discriminate, then I suggest we discriminate against the murderers. And, if one is to believe government stats, one will agree that the vast majority of gun killings are gang related. In Chicago, the city most often cited as being the murder city of the year, studies show that gang related gun murders accounted for more than 90% of the total gun killings last year. In case you're wondering, more than 500 people were killed in 2012 in Chicago. Gang activity accounted for more than 450 of those murders.
But, blaming gangs for the murders is not politically correct. Why? Well, those same government stats, once examined, show that the killers are black or Hispanic. In fact, 96% are black or Hispanic. Not my numbers, those are numbers from the government studies. And, the stats show that almost all of the murders are gang related, that either the killer, or the victim, or both, were gang members.
Given that info, why would we not just discriminate against the gang members? I can't think of any REASONABLE person who would disagree that gang members should not be allowed to possess guns. Not even my friends at the NRA.
Actually, those murders are already illegal, and most are committed by people who are not suppose to have guns in the first place.
Duh.
The problem is not guns. The problem is that our justice system does little to prevent crime. Police do a bang-up job investigating the crimes. After they occur. And, they will tell you that it's pretty easy identifying the bad guys 'cause they've got their pictures and fingerprints on file from previous crimes.
The problem is that we are treating these gang-bangers with kid gloves because of their minority status. It's time, America, that we take back our streets. It's time to do like New York City. Adopt stop and frisk policies for the police. I don't care if it's harassment. If an obvious gang member is in a suspicious area, then cops should be able to frisk him. It's worked wonders in the Big Apple. A city that's three times as big as Chicago had fewer murders than the president's home town (or, at least the town he seems to claim, these days). Every gang member should be stopped and searched, and if a weapon (and, that includes knives, martial arts gear, brass knuckles, or guns) is found, then that person should be held accountable. Justice should be swift, and punishment should be severe.
Naturally, the police should never be allowed to go where they're not needed, and this should not be an open invitation for the law to go beyond the intended boundaries. Strict controls must be strictly enforced. After all, this should not be an opportunity for an anti-gun establishment to violate the Second Amendment.
STOP AND FRISK may not be the best answer. But, it might be worth a trial in a city with a problem like Chicago has.
 

Another School Attack...this one gets almost no coverage

What the hey? Another attack on a school campus and it gets nothing more than local news coverage! How can that be, America? How can that be? No Brian Williams, no Piers Morgan with “School Attack Leaves One Wounded” reports. I’m disappointed. Shocked by their apathy.

Is it because there was no assault rifle or a handgun involved? You might ask the victim whether he thought the 12 inch butcher knife used in the attack was not as scary, not as dangerous as a semi-automatic rifle. You might ask whether the 17-year old man accused in the assault was any less threatening or less dangerous.

You might ask, or observe, as a number of those who have read the story on a local TV station’s web site, if the victim and/or the assailant are members of gangs.

The attack, luckily, was not fatal. At least, not this time. And, the teenager accused of attacking his classmate was quickly arrested. And, it was good that his bond was set at $25,000, a large amount the less-conservative-elements might say, given that no one knows if the assailant has a criminal record. Never mind that he is now free on bond, after appearing before a judge, coming up with the bail. The only positive part of this is that he is under “electronic surveillance”.

I’m sure that the victim’s parents are feeling good about the security of their child. And, I’m sure that the accused knife-wielding assailant has learned his lesson, and poses no threat to anyone because the man wearing the black robe in court told him to behave himself. Hopefully, he is satisfied that whatever dispute happened over the weekend has been resolved. If not, the victim remains at risk. And, if either or both of these individuals are gang members, their families and friends also remain at risk.

And, the bloodshed shall continue. Mark my word, and put it down in your notebook. This story is far from over.

No Chance for Feinstein's Gun Control; and Murder in Chicago

At least, that's what North Carolina's Third District Congressman, Walter Jones, says. Jones, during an interview on Live and Local with Raeford and Friends, doesn't give the proposed ban any chance of even getting through the Senate. Let's hope he's right.

That interview can be heard here https://soundcloud.com/raefordandfriends at least for a few days. Scroll down until you find the link "Interview with Congressman Jones".

The gun ban is not the only issue he talked about. He dealt, extensively, with women in combat roles, the debt ceiling, and more.

Moving on to guns, a hot topic these days, have you noticed that gun control freaks seem to use murder statistics in Chicago when they call for more gun bans and controls? Well, let's just take a look at those stats. The most recent ones I found were from 2011. Actually, the first six months of 2011, January to June. There were 185 homicides in the Windy City. Not sure how many involved guns, or how many of those were pistols, rifles, assault rifles or shotguns. Matters not, but one will rightly assume that most of the murders involved a firearm.

The population of Chicago, according to the 2010 census:
42% White
37% Black
26% Hispanic
...and the rest

The stats, according to the stats available, show that the killers were:
3.7% White
61% Black
35% Hispanic
...and the rest

In other words, 96% of the murders in Chicago in the first half of 2011 were committed by Blacks and Hispanics. Given that the majority of those murders involved guns, would one...if he wants to be labeled a racist or a bigot...not conclude that confiscating guns from all Hispanics and Blacks would reduce the number of murders in Chicago?

In North Dakota, by comparison, there were 10 murders STATEWIDE in a recent year. There are a lot of guns in North Dakota. Less than 2% of the population is Black.

If gun control advocates want to use statistics to prove their cases, then they should show us ALL of the statistics.

Going a step further. Chicago gangs, from the information available, are comprised mostly of Hispanics and Blacks. I can find no stats on the murders and how gangs play in them. But, I would venture an educated guess that a large number of those killings are gang-related. So, why not control gang activity with tough laws and stiff punishment? We "don't need no stinkin'" community organizers to handle tough problems in the inner city, we need tough cops, tough DA's, and tougher judges. Instead we decide that punishing 80-million law abiding gun owners who have more than 300-million guns, guns that were involved in NO murders last year, is the solution.

Typical liberal reaction to a real problem.
 

It’s NOT about raising money or taxes

 

Good for North Carolina’s new governor. He’s going about trying to cut expenses instead of raising money, i.e. taxes. Finally, a politician who “gets it”. Pat McCrory, a successful businessman, the former mayor of North Carolina’s largest city, is looking for ways to reduce the runaway spending programs across the state. It only makes sense to do that. Unlike those guys in Washington who’s only plan is to raise taxes, borrow more, and spend even more, maybe…just maybe…the McCrory crowd can get at least one state back on the right track.

That said, there are some additional steps that could be taken to make this state economically sound.

There are more than 20,000 inmates serving time in the state’s prison system. Estimates vary, but it’s generally accepted that it costs North Carolina’s taxpayers $40,000 per year for every one of these prisoners. That’s for food, housing, clothing, guards, and heaven knows what else. Ok, so, doing the math, I find that the annual cost just to keep these guys in prison is 800-MILLION dollars a year.

Can that be right? Isn’t there something we can do to reduce that financial burden? It’s a given that MOST of those serving time are repeat offenders, and that the only reason they were released in the first place was because the prison system is overcrowded. Building more prisons is expensive. We all admit that. And, none of us want that added expense. But, if you look at the big picture, an intelligent person might deduce that it would be cheaper to build more prisons than it is to catch and prosecute a formerly convicted criminal who should not have been on the streets in the first place. Stands to reason.  And, if you add up the costs for the losses caused by these denizens of society, it looks like a no-brainer.

“Losses?”, you question. Yep. A parolee who breaks into your home and steals your property causes you losses. Even if you have insurance, you lose because your insurance rates…already high because of crooks…will likely go up.

And, of course, cops have to investigate, and though they don’t make a lot of money, it still costs taxpayers who pay their salaries. And, local jails have to take care of these crooks once they’re arrested. And, there’s the cost of prosecuting them, which will likely include the cost of a public defender. All at taxpayer expense. Money that could be used for education.

Wouldn’t it be cheaper to build more prisons and keep these clowns off the streets in the first place?

Ok, so we don’t want to go to that expense. I have another solution. Why not contract with other countries to take care of the REPEAT offenders? Those we know are going to get out of jail and do the same crimes over and over again. Those who we know are going to cost taxpayers a lot of money. I bet that by soliciting other countries, allowing them to BID on the opportunity to take care of our scums, that they could do it a lot cheaper than $40-thousand a year. First, there would be an immediate savings. Second, other countries would see this as a source of revenue and it’s doubtful that they would be granting early releases. And, third, once these thugs are released, I suspect they would think twice about doing another crime that would send them back to that sort of hell.

To me, it sounds like a win-win. For the taxpayers, if not for the criminals.

More Dangerous than a Madman with a Rifle

Over the last five years, an estimated 25-times as many kids have died than were killed by an armed mad-man in Connecticut ten days before Christmas. And, it’s because our government has done nothing.

By its own estimates, the government of the United States says that some 110 children, under 10, die every year when they are backed over by drivers who can’t see them. As you would expect, most of those drivers are related to the victims.

This is one you can’t blame on George Bush. In 2008, before leaving office, then President Bush signed into legislation a LAW calling for new manufacturing techniques to provide better visibility BEHIND a car. That law went into effect almost five years ago. Since then, an estimated 500 kids have died.

You want to get mad about something, then get mad about this. The standards signed into law have yet to be mandated because of delays by the U.S. Department of Transportation. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has pushed back that deadline three times — promising last February that the rules would be issued by the end of 2012. And, guess what? Not yet.

Seems to me that Transportation Secretary LaHood needs to become history. Sure looks like he is a politician who needs to find a pasture. What really sucks is that he had announced plans to retire after Obama’s first term, but is now indicating he wants to stick around for a while longer. I guess he doesn’t have enough blood on his hands. Perhaps another 500 children will have to die before he takes this situation seriously. 

Politicians certainly make strange bedfellows. Bloody LaHood is a republican, appointed to the position in 2009. If he can’t carry out one little command that, once implemented, could save the lives of as many as 100 children every year, then he should be ridden out of town on a rail, wearing a combination of tar and feathers.

Won’t happen, of course. He may be a registered republican, but he’s an Illinois politician.