The Virginia Tech Tragedy has brought up an issue that needs addressing, should students with permits be allowed to carry firearms on campus? The students of VT had asked the administration to obey the law of their state by allowing them to carry fire arms. The administration refused, they claimed that the on campus security would protect the students… It wasn’t. We as a people cannot continue to rely on other people to protect us, we must take responsibility for our own safety.

If you are granted a concealed carry permit by the state of you live in then you should be allowed to carry your weapon on campus, there is no difference between a college campus and any other area of the state, and the university should not be allowed to run roughshod over the 2^nd amendment rights of it’s students.

We are frequently told that we are now adults, it is time that we are granted the privileges of adults.

Should everyone on campus be allowed to carry a gun, of course not, as long as Universities value diversity over common sense they’ll be people on campus who shouldn’t have a gun, and there are already laws in place that prevent a person with a criminal record from owning a gun. The VT massacre was only a massacre because the only person with a gun was the bad guy. We can’t say for sure that armed students would have stopped the shooting, but we can say that unarmed students made the killing much easier.

Ladies of the ASU women’s center,

I find myself a bit confused after hearing about your play the Vagina Monologues perhaps you’ll be so kind as to answer a few of my questions:

1.The first question I have is what is the appropriate term for me to use when addressing a women. I have always been taught that the “C-word” is derogatory, but according the Monologues its perfectly ok to chant at the top of your lungs over and over again. Does this mean that men are allowed to call women this whenever they want? Isn’t that objectifying women? Doesn’t the objectification of women lead to violence? Isn’t that what the feminist movement is trying to eradicate.

2. What’s the new rule on staring at a women’s private parts the play contains a skit: “Because he Liked to Look at it” in it a man is viewed as a hero for being obsessed with a women’s private area. Does this mean it’s ok for men to be obsessed with a women’s privates… I mean more so? I’m not that attractive if I claim I’m obsessed with vaginas will I get more dates?

3. I am fairly certain you support “take back the night” a program that tries to prevent rape, however in your play child rape by intoxication (the source of most if not all rapes on campus) is glorified, a women gets a 16 year old kid drunk and molests her. (She was 13 in the original version) Somehow the girl is happy afterwards because she’ll never have to rely on a man. In the original version wasn’t the girl 16 and didn’t she call the rape a “good rape”? What would be your reaction if a frat boy got a 16 year old girl drunk and molested her? How you claim to oppose rape when you put your name on performances like this?

4. Doesn’t the 6 foot vagina that you made literally reduce women to only their private parts. (Or was that open space at the top of it not for costume purposes but something far more disturbing?)

5. Why do you wish to change Valentine’s Day to Vagina Day? Isn’t the behavior of men on Valentine’s day (Buying flowers and chocolate) very supportive of women, wouldn’t it decrease violence against women if in fact you encouraged chivalry and respect for women instead of respect for their body parts?

I truly hope that you will find the time to answer my questions,

Farewell,

Graham Shaw

Sir or madam,

By now you have likely already received countless letters about Coulter's comments at the CPAC earlier in the week I signed a petition asking that she not be re-invited to the next CPAC, I have already asked the petitioner to remove my signature but it has not yet been done.

At this time I would like to let you know that I have decided to stay out of this entire affair. Please disregard the signature of Graham Shaw from rantingrightwinger.com ( a townhall blog) on any petitions you should receive.

I am not defending or attacking Ms. Coulter I simply think that it would be best not to take a side in this issue.

Sincerely

Graham Shaw

As many of you may have noticed (I’m pretending people actually read my blog) I have signed the petition against Ann Coulter. You may also notice that I have reserved the right to withdraw my signature. I am not yet certain as to the proper course of action in response to Coulter’s comments.

The most obvious reaction is one of defensiveness. Conservatives are constantly tagged as intolerant and bigoted. Coulter’s use of slurs in her past two CPAC appearances tends to lend credence to this assumption. The natural reaction is one of condemnation, no one benefits from reinforcing the myths about conservative viewpoints.

By using these slurs Coulter has put her conservative allies in a very difficult position. Coulter has been very loyal to the conservative cause she has been the source of very good press and much joy for the movement. But using slurs bring negative attention to the movement that cannot be easily dismissed by claiming liberal bias in the mainstream media. The good points that Coulter made in her speech are lost eradicated by a mainstream press all too eager to paint us all as homophobic bigots.

All is it not lost however, pundits such as Tammy Bruce come to her defense. According to Bruce, Coulter was referencing an incident where a person went into a re-education camp, sorry I mean, rehab center, after using the slur. Coulter may not have been demeaning Edwards as much as some liberals would like to believe.

It’s hard to take a position on this matter, on the one hand we conservatives have enough problems without one of our key figures using slurs, on the other hand Coulter has been a loyal conservative for years now and few people are better at ticking off the left that her. Is it right for us to throw Coulter under the bus because of two isolated incidents?

The best action for conservatives now may be to wait this out. Coulter needs a chance to explain herself, she owes no explanation to the liberals who have demeaned her from day one, but she does owe an explanation to those who support her. I’m waiting, we’re all waiting.

Dear Tommy,
I am very sorry that it took so long for me to respond to you, I am very sorry you did not like my article on co-ed bathrooms; it was never my intention to offend you in anyway. I apologize for my actions and hope that this will not tarnish…

Oh Lord it’s hard to keep that up! Tommy, may I call you Tommy? I can’t tell you how happy I was when I got your hate-mail; you see it was my first. So I need to thank you for that, I truly hope that this will not be last hate mail you send me, and that you will tell all your friends to send me hate-mail as well.

As a special reward for being my first hate-mail I will now break down your mail:

Let’s begin with point one: apparently you think my letter was the dumbest thing you’ve ever read in your life. Are you certain about this? Have you ever read The Vagina Monologues? I’m certain that a play that uses the “C” word over and over and over again is dumber than an article on co-ed bathrooms being morally repugnant.

Your second point seems to be that my letter being stupid is the reason it was published. How did you arrive at this conclusion, are you saying that our school newspaper intentionally runs “stupid” articles? I’ll have to agree with you that our newspaper runs countless stupid articles most of which praise various democrats as if they were Saints. But I don’t think stupidity is the reason those articles were ran I think it is symptomatic of the liberal bias at our newspaper.

You do however raise an interesting point: why was a conservative article run by a liberal paper. Now that I think of it I might have become a part of an Affirmative Action program at the newspaper, this means I’m now a “protected class” under out student code of conduct.

Now it seems I must go back on my word, please send me no more hate-mail, if you do it will count as harassment and will be reported to the Ministry of Love… I mean Student Judicial Affairs immediately. I am certain that after a session in Room 101... I mean the Equity office you will no longer harbor an unjust hatred of conservatives.

Sincerely

Graham Shaw

Dear Editor

After breezing through your article on asking students to vote I came upon a rather common error that people make when discussing elections. Namely, there is no right to vote. The Constitution only states reasons that you cannot deny a person the vote, reasons such as race and sex. It is a plain and simple fact that some people should not be allowed to vote.

The vote should be denied to anyone who does not have some basic knowledge of our nations political system, and history. So I’m going to give a short test if you don’t get at least a 70 then do us all a favor and don’t vote, there is no excuse for not knowing these.

1. Who wrote the Declaration of Independence?

2 According to the Declaration where does government power come from?

3. What three freedoms are said to be inalienable by the Declaration?

4. What amendment protects citizens from self incrimination?

5. How long does a US Supreme Court term last?

6. How many times may a Senator be re-elected?

7. How many times may a president be re-elected?

8.How many seats does each state have in the Senate?

9. How is representation in the house decided?

10. How many votes are required to override a presidential veto of a bill?

Answers:

1. Thomas Jefferson

2. The consent of the governed

3. Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness

4. 5^th

5. For Life (they may resign if they wish)

6. Unlimited

7. Twice consecutively

8. 2

9. By population

10. 2/3 majority

I am a student at this university, despite the fact that I find the notion that women need an entire center dedicated to their needs to be inherently sexist I do find myself monitoring your site every now and then. This is a great act of courage for me and any male who logged onto the website last year, because every male was sexually harassed on the site by anti-male quotes such as “Behind every successful man there’s a surprised women,” and “A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do, a woman must do what he cannot”.

However, I digress (despite the fact that I was not properly compensated for my pain and suffering) since your site promptly removed the quotes when you were exposed to the world for your man hating quotes. The purpose of my letter today is to point out a massive oversight on your website lets start out with this quote:

I’m certain that this was an honest mistake and that you will take action to put up a pro-family quote on your site very soon.

We’re not done yet. After looking over your weblinks page I am very shocked to see that you have a total of 3 “pro-choice” (including NOW and the Planned Parenthood EC site) websites but only one pro-life website. You also have 3 pro-homosexual websites.” Are you honestly implying that the “diverse Appalachian State University women…” are all pro-choice, pro-homosexual?

If you wish to truly live up to your mission statement then you should add a few pro-life websites, as well as websites that promote traditional ideas of romance between a man and a woman. Sites such as www.iwf.org and www.eagleforum.org are good places to start. These will also give you a good source of pro-family quotes in order to counter balance the anti-family quote you’ve placed on the site.

You are welcome in advance for my pointing this problems out to you. I look forward to the changes you will soon make on your site.

Farewell beauties,

Graham P Shaw

    One of the better shows on network television is the hit crime drama Law and Order and its two spin-offs SVU and Criminal Intent. While the plots are normally compelling and the acting superb the show more and more often has taken to presenting plots that are less centered around the investigation of a crime and the trail that follows and more about inventing the situations liberals so wish exist so their policies will make sense.

    SVU is a good example, one character (played by Richard Belzer) frequently throws out leftist one liners. For instance in one case the detectives investigate a stabbing that left a boy paralyzed, it eventually lead them to a lesbian couple that had sued to get their daughter into a Catholic school. The couple’s home was vandalized and they recived threatening calls. Belzer’s character responded to this by saying “Since when did New York become a Red State?” This statement was apparently based on the large number of “red staters” who listed “vandalizing the homes of homosexuals” as their main political activities

    SVU also takes on the abortion argument, if by “takes on the argument” you mean “presents a case that accounts for a miniscule percent of all abortions as a common occurrence.” In the story a girl is found beaten in her hotel room. It quickly becomes obvious that she is pregnant, after Teddy Kennedy is found to have air tight alibi the detectives search elsewhere. The theory goes that the boyfriend beat her to kill the baby. The girl is once again beaten by the same boy later. The police begin to investigate into the girl’s life.

    Here is where the show decides to throw cheap shot’s at abstinence programs. The father of the girl says she can’t be pregnant because she made the “Golden Promise” not to have sex till she’s married. Instantly Belzer’s character lashes out at the program, blaming it for a 50% percent pregnancy rate at a high school. When the girl’s boyfriend is found to be from the same school Belzer triumphantly states “That’s two golden promises broken.”

    Turns out the girl had snuck into New York because she wanted to get an abortion. She was unable to obtain it in her home state because the state had a parental notification law. (Her father kicked her older sister out of the house when she got pregnant.) She was unable to get an abortion pill because the Evil pharmacist in her community said doing so was against his conscience. (Boy for some reason the word conscience reminds me of a certain law that liberals don‘t like). She then ordered an herbal remedy over the internet to try and induce an abortion. (I guess you really can buy anything on the internet).

    Alas, alas all her efforts came to naught and she had to go to New York for her abortion. When she went to the clinic she ended up at a fake abortion clinic (oddly enough I’ve never heard of a fake abortion clinic) that kept on making excuses to prevent performing the abortion. At her wits end the girl asks he boyfriend to beat her to kill the baby. She helps by beating herself, it only appeared that she was being abused (her cries of “Don’t! Stop!” were actually “don’t stop!) In the end the fake abortion clinic doctor is arrested as the show ends.

    This is typical of Hollywood’s treatment of pro-life America. Pro-choice people are intelligent and well composed and pro-life people are naïve conmen. The “good guys” (with the exception of the DA) are all pro-choice, and the laws that conservatives like--conscience laws to protect pharmacists, parental notification laws, anti-beating-your-girlfriend-in-the-belly-to-induce-an-abortion laws-- all contributed to the crime.

    Not to mention that the situation the girl found herself in (which was designed to gain maximum sympathy for the girl) isn’t exactly what you would call a common situation. The whole episode was a very pathetic attempt to invent the type of situation feminists love to site as proof abortion is necessary to prevent the death of women. (Originally, the position was the baby wasn’t enough of a baby to warrant protection but those stupid sonograms had to go and ruin that one…) It’s time for Law and Order SVU to stop political soap boxing and go back to being a crime drama.

I recently wrote a letter to the editor of my School’s newspaper, it involved a resort that is being built in the local community. It’s going to be an expensive resort and like everything that involves the rich it has the lefties in my school going ape. What follows is the uncut version of my letter, I had to edit large portions of it for word constraints

I for one am tired of hearing people complain about building of a resort in Boone. Why on earth do a group of college students think they have the right to tell a person/cooperation what to do with their property. Where so these protests come from? The Marxist virus that infects so many Universities in America? Some paganistic notion that everyone owns the earth. I have the feeling if I wanted to stop one these protesters from building on their property they’d politely tell me to go copulate with myself.

Modern society is based on the premise that a person can do whatever he wants to with his own property within reasonable limits. None of the protesters arguments qualify as reasonable. It’s not like the resort is poisoning the water supply. Movements like this only contribute to the dangerous infraction on private property rights in America, which are already in mortal danger thanks to recent the Supreme Court decision in Kelo V New London. Since our private property rights are already on the chopping block it is imperative that we respect each others property rights.

Another area of argument that protesters decry is that people will be forced off their lands when the resort raises property values. I by no means am an economic expert but last time I checked you gain money if your property value increases. Perhaps there’s some kind of tax consequence I’m not foreseeing but regardless, even if the resort does force people to move, it doesn’t change the fact that private industries have the right to do what they want with their land.

Instead of protesting, how about the “friends of the blue ridge mountains” raise some money, and buy the property themselves then give it to the people who supposedly had to move to Tennessee because of the evil rich building their resort. However reasonable solutions like this probably get in the way of a good leftist rant about the rich getting richer off the backs of the poor.

Perhaps the most ridiculous argument I’ve heard so far against the resort is that the jobs they are creating are “minimum skill and minimum wage” meaning they “will not be beneficial”. I fail to see how creating more jobs could be anything but beneficial. What on earth is bad about lowering the unemployment level? Any job is better than no job, it’s better to have some income rather than rely on government handouts, or having to beg for money. So I ask these protesters , out of respect for property rights and the welfare of Boone, please cease and desist.

It’s official! Bill Clinton reacts to the truth like Linda Blair to Holy Water. ABC is set to air a docudrama about the 9-11 attacks and the many government faults that lead up to it. The movie is critical of both the Bush and Clinton administrations. Apparently Clinton isn’t too happy with being accused of being lax on terrorism (I can’t blame him, I mean look how well he handled the bombing of the USS Cole).

Clinton’s lawyers and various other Democrats have now tried to have show canceled. Senators Richard Durbin Chuck Schumer et al sent a letter to the head of Disney (which owns ABC) that carried a veiled threat to pull their broadcast license. Clinton’s lawyer has also fired off a letter asking for it’s cancellation.

The question is now why do the Democrats want this show pulled. Could it be because it exposes the fact that for 8 years Bill Clinton ignored the threat of Islamic terrorists? Could it be because having this information revealed might harm the chances of a Democratic win in the upcoming mid terms? Could it be because refocusing the public on the tragedy might distract the public from their daily dose of bad news form Iraq?

The Democratic party is in the final stages of a leftist takeover, instead of great leaders like Franklin Roosevelt the party now embraces Teddy “Chappaquiddick” Kennedy and John “I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it” Kerry. The only hope they have of even remaining in existence as a party, much less regaining the house or senate, is for the American people to remain ignorant of the fact that Democrats have no stance on National Security.

Every single attempt to fight terrorism has been fought tooth and nail by the Democrats, they don’t want to racially profile at airports, (suggested epitaph for the next terrorist victims “Died for the noble cause of not offending Muslims) they don’t want terror suspects detained, or questioned, or even monitored. They attack all American military action that is geared towards avoiding terrorism, they demean and accuse our troops of all kinds of atrocities.

The last thing the democrats need is a movie that will reveal these facts to the portion of the American population that doesn’t pay much attention to politics. So the solution becomes clear: prevent it from airing at all costs! By threatening ABC with political repercussions to those who would threaten them politically the Democratic party has betrayed the fundamental rights of free speech that this country used to hold dear.