Joseph Avenue Christmas is the story of one man's journey to the true meaning of Christmas. Not just the birth of the babe, but the salvation of the soul. Set on the wintry streets of Rochester, NY it is a visit to the heart of that city and the hearts of some of its best and bravest people. From their good example, and the simple lessons of their own lives and faith, a troubled man finds on a dark Christmas Eve an escape from an increasingly failed life.
Buy the book online by clicking these links:
Studio Phone: (585) 222-1180
Local Phone: (585) 279-5281
Phone Toll-Free: (800) 295-1180
Senator Joe Robach talks with Bob Lonsberry to explain the STAR Program and answer any questions you might have. Listen below...
To learn more, go to http://www.tax.ny.gov/
I will obey the law.
By January 15, I will register my assault rifle with the New York State Police.
I hate the law, I recognize that it makes me a second-class American, I loathe the governor and the legislature that forced it upon me, and I am certain that it violates the Second Amendment.
But I will obey it.
After 11 months of thought and prayer, after having gone back and forth repeatedly, I have decided to submit.
Not because I am weak, but because I am strong, because the founding principles of this Republic are more dear to me than they are to the partisan tyrants who rule over me.
At issue is the New York Safe Act, the Cuomo gun ban, a middle-of-the-night gutting of the Second Amendment by the petty caesar on the Hudson. Exploiting the murder of children for political gain, Andrew Cuomo forced the most restrictive gun laws in the country on a state whose forefathers went to war to create this nation.
No more than seven bullets in a magazine, background checks for every ammunition purchase, state records created for every bullet sold, no transfer of assault weapons – even as part of an estate – and a mandatory registration of every assault rifle.
That last part has been hardest to swallow.
I bought my assault rifle in New York some 20 years ago. It was legal then, I have owned it legally since, and now, presto change-o, I can either turn it in, sell it out of state, or register it. And when I die, it goes to the state.
Those are the legal options.
The illegal options include simply not registering the gun, and continuing to keep it in my gun safe, or hiding it away somewhere.
For most of the last year, I have thought to do one of the last two things. Either that or find some place over the border in Pennsylvania where I could keep forbidden guns.
I hate this law, it is immoral, it is an assault to liberty, and it is none of the state’s damn business what guns I do or don’t own. In my mind, I have dreamt of a statewide wave of civil disobedience, where thousands and tens of thousands refuse to register their guns.
I do not know if that wave will happen or not.
But I have decided I cannot be a part of it. Not because I agree with the law, not because my opposition to it has ebbed, but because I believe that the only right way to go about things is to do the right thing the right way.
As a practical matter, there are more than enough people in local law enforcement who’d like to fry me that I’m pretty certain some cop of some stripe would have his nose in my gun safe in a heartbeat if it looked like I was ignoring the law in the slightest degree.
But my decision isn’t practical, it is philosophical.
I believe in rule of law. I believe we are partners in a social contract and until such time as a person disavows the social contract and comes out in open rebellion, the contract must be honored. The law must be obeyed. A good citizen must be a good citizen.
I don’t believe that a citizen is morally justified in picking and choosing the laws he obeys. My religion – which I’m notoriously bad at living – teaches that it is the duty of a Christian to obey the law.
Further, and most importantly, the necessity of obeying the law in a republic was forcefully explained by Abraham Lincoln in his famous address to the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois. He said that obedience to law must be our national religion, that it was the law which safeguarded our freedoms and that while we should passionately seek to repeal, change or derail the laws we think are wrong, as long as they are the laws we are duty bound to honor them.
In another speech, Lincoln expressed his repulsion at the Dread Scott decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, which said that escaped slaves were not people, they were property. He said the decision was wrong, immoral and unconstitutional, and that people of conscience were obligated to overturn it, but they were obligated to obey it until they did.
Our system must be orderly, it cannot tolerate individuals usurping or nullifying the legislative process and the rule of law.
Sadly, our society has had too much abandoning of that principal in recent years. We have agreed to ignore and flagrantly violate our immigration laws, we have accepted fairly broad-based lawlessness as the norm of our day.
But I cannot do that.
I will obey the law. My governor may not. My president may not. But I will.
I am going to be a good citizen, even if I live under an oppressive government.
I will follow the constitutional principles of the Founders, even if the government does not.
I will obey the law.
Until I can stick it up the backside of the dictatorial governor who passed it.
Bob and Phil discuss the "woosification" of America and how our football should remain king in the nation's sports world. Listen below...
Thad Brown talks with Bob Lonsberry about the Bills and all the great games in the snow yesterday around the NFL. Steelers come up just short, Ravens come from behind in grand fashion, and more. Listen below...
Photo Courtesy: nyulocal.com
The Democrats are right, there are two Americas.
The America that works, and the America that doesn’t. The America that contributes, and the America that doesn’t.
It’s not the haves and the have nots, it’s the dos and the don’ts. Some people do their duty as Americans, to obey the law and support themselves and contribute to society, and others don’t.
That’s the divide in America.
It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility. It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office. It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country.
That’s not invective, that’s truth.
And it’s about time someone said it.
The politics of envy was on proud display last week as the president said he would pledge the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.” He notes that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just.
It was the rationale of thievery.
The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you.
It is the electoral philosophy that gave us Detroit. It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America.
And it conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense. It ends up not being a benefit to the people who support it, but a betrayal. The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them – in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victimhood and anger instead of ability and hope.
The president’s premise – that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful – seeks to ignore and cheat the law of choices and consequences. It seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices.
Because, by and large, the variability in society is a result of different choices leading to different consequences. Those who choose wisely and responsibility have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure.
And success and failure can manifest themselves in personal and family income.
You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education. You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course, you have them in wedlock and life is apt to take another course.
Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take.
My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome. But, our lives also have had an inequality of effort. Whereas my doctor went to college and then gave the flower of his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant. He made a choice, I made a choice. And our choices led us to different outcomes.
His outcome pays a lot better than mine.
Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his wealth?
No, it means we are both free men.
And in a free society, free choices will lead to different outcomes.
It is not inequality Barack Obama will take away, it is freedom.
The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail. And there is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure.
The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy.
Even if the other guy sat on his arse and did nothing.
Even if the other guy made a lifetime’s worth of asinine and shortsighted decisions.
Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort. The simple Law of the Harvest – as ye sow, so shall ye reap – is sometimes applied as, “The harder you work, the more you get.”
The progressive movement would turn that upside down.
Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society. Entitlement has replaced effort as the key to upward mobility in American society.
Or at least it has if Barack Obama gets his way.
He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive and fosters equality through mediocrity.
He and his party speak of two Americas.
And their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other.
America is not divided by the differences in our outcomes, it is divided by the differences in our efforts. And by the false philosophy that says one man’s success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.
What the president offered was not a solution, but a separatism. He fomented division and strife, he pitted one set of Americans against another.
For his own political benefit.
That’s what progressives offer. Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow.
Two Americas, coming closer each day to proving the truth to Lincoln’s maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand.