Archive for July, 2007

Front Sight Banner

July 24, 2007

Front Sight - World's Premiere Training for Self Defense and Personal Safety

Front Sight Advanced Training, fourth try!

July 24, 2007

Front Sight Advanced Training, third try!

July 24, 2007

<ul style=”list-style-type: none;”>
<li>Front Sight <a href=”; title=”firearms training”>Firearms Training</a> Institute</li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – founder of Front Sight</li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Ignatius Piazza blog”>Ignatius Piazza</a> Blog </li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Ignatius Piazza in Forbes”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Forbes Magazine</li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in Black Belt Magazine</li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Front sight”>Front Sight</a> – in Icon Magazine</li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in The Mail on Sunday Review</li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – on USA Today</li>
<li>My Experience at <a href=”; title=”Front Sight “>Front Sight </a></li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Gun World</li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Playboy</li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in San Francisco Chronicle</li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in Los Angeles Times</li>
<li><a href=”; title=”front sight”>Front Sight</a> – in Cybercast News Service</li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in Gun Web</li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Las Vegas Sun</li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Small Arms Review</li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in Financial Times</li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in Sierra Times</li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – on World Net Daily</li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in El Mercurio</li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – on CNN</li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in Guns &amp; Ammo</li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in New York Times</li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Times Democrat</li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in London Times</li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Fort Worth Star Telegram</li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Chicago Tribune</li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in Santa Cruz Sentinel</li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Las Vegas Life</li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Las Vegas Mercury</li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Handvapen Guiden</li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in National Enquirer</li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Las Vegas Review </li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Washington Post</li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in El Pais Seminal </li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – on Reform America</li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – on BBC News</li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in US News &amp; World Report</li>
<li><a href=”; title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in Pajaronian Register</li>

Legion official lauds attempt to shine light on problems

July 24, 2007

In keeping with Texas Fred’s current theme having to do with the shoddy, at best, treatment of our Veterans I decided to post this story from the Rocky Mountain News.

A former national commander of the American Legion who is based in Colorado said Monday that he is generally supportive of the lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs, although he added he does not know the details of it.”The fact that it’s bringing attention (to the issues) to the public – that’s admirable,” Tom Bock said by phone Monday from the headquarters of the Colorado American Legion.

“The general public needs to know there are shortcomings inside a good system,” Bock said.

Bock, who served as the national commander for the American Legion from 2005-2006, said delays in processing benefits for soldiers have been a problem for years.

“The claims processing is way behind,” he said, adding that there are currently 400,000 disability claims nationwide that still need to be processed.

Bock said veterans with mental health issues are a major concern, because the numbers have grown, running as high as 30 percent to 35 percent of returning soldiers.

“It is critical that we take care of our soldiers at this time when they come home,” he said. “The VA needs to start more mental health centers.

However, he said he does not know if a lawsuit is the way to get the VA to make changes. Instead, he said the American Legion has concentrated on getting the VA properly funded.

“I don’t know if the VA alone can fix it,” he said. “What services you have depends on what you can provide the dollars for. When it comes to expanding coverage and taking better care (of soldiers), that’s where Congress needs to step up.”

He said that one problem is that while a great deal of publicity and debate has taken place over whether the war on terrorism should be fought, little attention has been paid to what happens to soldiers when they return home.

“We have to remember that these are our sons and daughters and grandsons and granddaughters,” he said. “They’re protecting our freedoms and we need to stand up for that – both when they’re gone and when they come back home.”

Keep up the good fight Tom!

Responsive Government

July 24, 2007

Colorado’s Governor, Bill Ritter, ran on a platform of responsive government, among other things. Just what does that mean though? I emailed him about something that is very important to myself and others. Here, is the response;

Your message

To: Governor Ritter
Subject: SB 34
Sent: Mon, 14 May 2007 23:44:24 -0600

was deleted without being read on Sat, 21 Jul 2007 00:04:36 -0600

Why am I thinking that I would have received a response if I would have emailed him about some leftest agenda item?


John Doe, and civic responsibility

July 23, 2007

In Washington, a House-Senate conference committee on a homeland security bill is considering whether to include a measure to protect, from lawsuit, Americans who report suspicious behavior.  The so-called “John Doe” measure comes in response to a lawsuit by six imams who were booted from a plane that was about to fly from Minneapolis late last year because they were acting very suspiciously, refusing to sit in their assigned seats, asking for metal seat belt extenders, and speaking loudly and disparagingly about the United States.  The imams plan to sue not only the airline but the passengers who reported their behavior — a step that, if successful, could have a chilling effect on whether other Americans come forward to report such behavior or whether they decide that doing so isn’t worth the legal fees.  Without this protection, Americans would have no reason to follow the motto of law enforcement agencies: “If you see something, say something.”

Separately, the “John Doe” legislation passed both the House and Senate by overwhelming margins.  But key Democrats are trying to drop it from the homeland security bill, which would kill it.  House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson isn’t enthused about it, and Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy spoke against it on the Senate floor.  The conference committee is meeting and will make a final decision on this vital legislation in the coming days.

If you agree Americans should be encouraged to report suspicious behavior, if you agree they should not be intimidated by the threat of a lawsuit that could bankrupt them, now is the time to act.  Call or e-mail your own Senator and your House member.  You can find their contact information at – just enter your zip code.  Tell them to insist that the conference committee include “John Doe” protection in this bill.  And after calling or e-mailing your own Senator and House member, contact Congressman Thompson and Senator Leahy.  Also contact House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Senate Assistant Majority Leader Richard Durbin.

Don’t leave Americans who do the right thing by reporting suspicious behavior out in the cold.  Don’t let Americans be intimidated into keeping quiet.  In the war on terror, there’s too much at stake for all of us.


SOURCE: Vigilant Freedom

Assault on Second Amendment

July 23, 2007

Assault on Second Amendment

Terence P. Jeffrey
July 20, 2007

A useful illustration of how American freedom could fade away can be seen in a contrast between the city government of Newton, Mass., in 1775, and the city government of Washington, D.C., in 2007.
On Jan. 2, 1775, as historian David Hackett Fischer recounts in “Paul Revere’s Ride,” the good people of Newton held a town meeting. The issues they discussed were similar in a certain sort of way to the issues that might be discussed today by the D.C. Council. They included a proposed gun law and entitlement program.
In Newton, the gun law and entitlement program were one and the same. The Newtonians thought it so important for every man in town to own a gun that they were ready to give him one if he could not afford it. “Voted,” say the town records, “that the Selectmen use their best discretion in providing firearms for the poor of the town who are unable to provide for themselves.”
D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty does not see guns the way our Founders did. In his view, they are not tools for defending individual liberty, they are instruments of criminality.
This week, Mr. Fenty announced the District would appeal to the Supreme Court a March U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decision that ruled a District gun law unconstitutional. The law flatly bans possession of a handgun — even in one’s own home — unless the gun was registered before 1976. “Wherever I go, the response from the residents is, ‘Mayor Fenty, you’ve got to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court,”‘ said Mr. Fenty.
In fact, however, the D.C. handgun suit pits individual law-abiding D.C. residents against a Constitution-flouting D.C. government. These individuals claim the local government is violating their Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.” The appeals court agreed.
The District argues there is no such thing as an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the Framers did not intend to protect one. Pointing to the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment (“A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State”), it argued in court that the substantive clause (“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”) was not really intended to protect a “right of the people,” but a right of state governments to maintain militias.
“The District claims that the Second Amendment ‘protects private possession of weapons only in connection with performance of civic duties as part of a well-regulated citizens militia organized for the security of a free state,” Judge Laurence Silberman reported in his opinion for the appeals court. Because the District implicitly argued that Founding-era-type militias no longer exist, Judge Silberman said, the unavoidable conclusion, if the District’s argument is accepted, is that the Second Amendment is meaningless.

“[I]n fact, at oral argument, appellees’ counsel asserted that it would be constitutional for the District to ban all firearms outright,” said Judge Silberman. “In short, we take the District’s position to be that the Second Amendment is a dead letter.”

The generation of Americans who ratified the Second Amendment would see such an outcome as a prelude to the extermination of all the other rights of the “people” recognized in the Constitution.

Gun ownership, in their view, was not merely an individual but a natural right. If individuals had a God-given right to life, liberty and property, it obviously followed they also had a right to individually possess the means to protect their life, liberty and property. That meant guns.

The 1689 Bill of Rights enacted by England’s parliament reflected this view, as did William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England,” one of the most popular books in Colonial America. Even Founding era editorial writers understood gun ownership was a natural individual right.

A 2004 opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Council explaining why the Second Amendment protects an individual right cited an April 13, 1769, editorial from the New York Journal Supplement. “It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the [English] Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defense,” said the editorial, “and as Mr. Blackstone observes, it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”

Three months after the people of Newton resolved to provide firearms for the poor, English regulars marched on nearby Concord with the aim of disarming the American people.

Hopefully, a majority of the Supreme Court will stand as firmly today in defense of the right to keep and bear arms as Americans once did at Concord Bridge.

Terence P. Jeffrey is a nationally syndicated columnist.

The latest on Second Amendment rights

July 23, 2007

On 12 July, the House Appropriations Committee successfully blocked gun-control advocates from gaining access to gun-purchasing data restricted by the Tiahrt amendment. The 2004 amendment, which Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) had sought to unravel, protects the privacy of law-abiding gun owners by restricting disclosure of federal records of gun purchases to third parties. 

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court may hear an appeal by the city government of Washington, DC, in a major test case on the meaning of the Second Amendment—specifically, whether it protects one’s right to have guns in the home. The city will be defending what they deem to be the “constitutionality” of their local gun-control law, the strictest in the nation. After all, it worked so well when it was in effect.

Also, the Labor Department published a notice in the 17 July Federal Register announcing the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) “proposes to revise the explosives and blasting-agents standard.” Their absurd recent proposal sought to classify ammunition and various reloading supplies indiscriminately as explosives, which would have dried up ammo sales. After the massive response from gun owners, it’s no wonder that OSHA is putting the safety back on a bad idea.


Justice Served?

July 23, 2007

SOURCE: Patriot Post 

Justice served? (Part 1)

As a former uniformed law enforcement officer, I can tell you that, sometimes, frontier outlaws are best deterred with frontier justice.

On 17 February 2005, two U.S. Border Patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, were patrolling the El Paso County, Texas, frontier with Mexico in order to secure our border. Both men were experienced agents—Ramos was a 10-year veteran and a former nominee for “Agent of the Year”; Compean had served for five years.

At midday, Ramos and Compean attempted to stop a known drug smuggler, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, and check his vehicle. Aldrete-Davila fled from his vehicle and ran toward the Mexican border with the agents in hot pursuit on foot. Ramos and Compean fired 15 rounds at the smuggler at intervals when he turned toward them, but were unable to capture him before he crossed the border.

Border Patrol supervisors responded to the scene, and the agents did not file a report on the shooting because they assumed Aldrete-Davila had not been injured. Upon inspection, it was determined that the vehicle Aldrete-Davila abandoned contained 743 pounds of marijuana.

Two weeks later, Aldrete-Davila’s mother called a friend in the U.S. and complained that her son had been shot. A Department of Homeland Security investigator, Christopher Sanchez, contacted Aldrete-Davila and learned that he indeed had been shot in the buttocks.

Sanchez contacted Johnny Sutton, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas, and a Bush administration insider. He worked for then-Governor George Bush’s General Counsel for five years before the President-elect asked him to be policy coordinator for the Bush-Cheney Transition Team in 2000. (“Policy coordinator”—that explains why the Bush administration is sideways with everyone else in America on the immigration issue.) Sutton was appointed to his current U.S. Attorney post by President Bush on 25 October 2001.

Second-guessing field agents from the comfort of his leather chair and air-conditioned office in El Paso, Sutton concluded that the agents had violated rules of engagement that require an officer to believe he is subject to threat of deadly assault before using deadly force. He then granted Aldrete-Davila a “humanitarian visa” and immunity from the drug-smuggling charge if he would return to the U.S. and testify against Ramos and Compean. Sutton then drew up criminal charges against the agents for assault with a deadly weapon, inflicting serious bodily injury and violating Aldrete-Davila’s civil rights.

“Civil rights,” my buttocks. There was no ethnic, religious or racial motivation for this shooting. (It is worth noting that El Paso County is 80 percent Latino, and Ramos, Compean and Aldrete-Davila are all Latino.) This was a case of two agents, charged with securing our borders from the plague of illegal aliens (including those smuggling drugs), two agents trying to do their job against all odds.

Adding insult to injury, according to concealed evidence from the Drug Enforcement Administration, Aldrete-Davila, while awaiting the trial of Ramos and Compean (and still subject to the immunity grant from Sutton), became, and remains, a prime suspect in the smuggling of 750 pounds of marijuana from Juarez, Mexico, to Clint, Texas. That evidence was not presented at the Ramos and Compean trial, however—ostensibly so as not to tarnish the name of a known drug smuggler…

To the dismay of their fellow agents and the nation, Sutton secured convictions against Ramos and Compean based on Aldrete-Davila’s claim that he was unarmed. For the record, major drug dealers travel armed and dangerous, and any law-enforcement officer who wants to get home for dinner had better assume the same.

Ramos and Compean were sentenced to 11 and 12 years in prison, respectively, and began serving those sentences on 17 January 2007. Both men leave behind wives and three children, each.

While the agents violated the law and agency policy by firing on the suspect, assuming Aldrete-Davila was telling the truth about being unarmed and assuming the agents did not believe he was armed—even if both assumptions are correct—the sentence does not fit the crime.

Meanwhile, Aldrete-Davila, understandably emboldened by the lottery element of American justice, has filed a $5-million lawsuit against the U.S. government for violating his civil rights.

Upon further investigation, it turns out that Ramos and Compean are not Sutton’s only “uniformed victims.”

On 14 April 2005, Edwards County, Texas, Sheriff’s Deputy Guillermo Hernandez stopped a vehicle for a traffic violation. Once Hernandez had exited his patrol car, the driver attempted to run him down and flee. Hernandez fired several shots at the vehicle, attempting to flatten a tire. One of those shots pierced the trunk of the car and wounded one of several illegal aliens whom the driver had concealed there. The Texas Rangers investigated the shooting and cleared Hernandez of any wrongdoing.

A year later, however, Sutton reopened the case, and on 16 December 2006 he got a conviction against Hernandez for violating the civil rights of the injured illegal. Hernandez was sentenced to a year in prison and is now serving that sentence.

El Paso has strong cultural and economic ties to Mexico, so strong that Latino juries are willing to convict Latino law enforcement officers who pursue Latino illegals. Clearly, however, justice has not been served in either of these cases.

In the Ramos and Compean case, California Reps. Duncan Hunter and Dana Rohrabacher have vigorously defended the agents and called on President Bush to commute the sentences prior to incarceration.

“This is the worst betrayal of American defenders I have ever seen… [President Bush] obviously thinks more about his agreements with Mexico than the lives of American people and backing up his defenders,” said Mr. Rohrabacher. “Our border agents risk their lives daily to uphold our immigration laws and defend our borders. If the conviction of Ramos and Compean is an indication of how our government will repay them, we can be certain good men and women will soon flee the ranks of Border Patrol service.”

Mr. Hunter added, “This is the most severe injustice I’ve ever seen with respect to the treatment of U.S. Border Patrol agents or, I might add, the treatment of any uniformed officers.”

Yet President Bush has refused to consider a commutation, fearing he might offend some of his Latino constituents. Consequently this week, 180 days after Ramos and Compean surrendered to U.S. Marshals to serve their sentences, Senate Republicans and Democrats responded to the national outrage and held hearings on the case.

At the conclusion of those hearings, liberal Sen. Dianne Feinstein and conservative Sen. John Cornyn called on President Bush to commute the agents’ sentences, noting that the hearings “confirmed the concerns raised by many members of the public: that this penalty levied on these agents is excessive and that they deserve the immediate exercise of your executive-clemency powers.”

President Bush says he will review the case prosecuted by his “dear friend” Sutton but has not committed to commute the sentences of Ramos and Compean.

Please take a moment to sign Free the Texas Three and Secure our Borders, a national petition calling on President Bush to commute the sentences of both former Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, and their colleague, former Sheriff’s Deputy Guillermo Hernandez; asking Congress to insist that the DEA prosecute Mexican national Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila on felony drug distribution charges; and demanding that Congress and the Bush administration secure our borders. (If you don’t have Web access, you can sign this petition by sending a blank e-mail to: <sign-borders@PatriotPetitions.US>)

Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, and their colleague, formerSheriff’s Deputy Guillermo Hernandez

July 23, 2007

Make your voice heard TODAY!

Please join fellow Patriots and sign “Free the Texas Three and
Secure our Borders” — A citizen petition calling on President
Bush to commute the sentences of both former Border Patrol agents
Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, and their colleague, former
Sheriff’s Deputy Guillermo Hernandez; asking Congress to insist
that the DEA prosecute Mexican national Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila
on felony drug distribution charges; and demanding that Congress
and the Bush administration secure our borders.

“It is not honorable to take mere legal advantage, when it happens
to be contrary to justice.” –Thomas Jefferson

To sign this petition online, link to —

If you don’t have Web access, you can sign this petition by
sending a blank e-mail to: <sign-borders@PatriotPetitions.US>

Please forward this invitation to Patriot family members, friends
and associates.  In order to encourage serious consideration
of this critical issue, we must collect in excess of 100,000

(Circulation of this petition is being sponsored by The Patriot,
the most widely read conservative e-journal on the Internet. If
you have not already joined the ranks of Patriots receiving
The Patriot, we encourage you to do so. This highly acclaimed
conservative digest of news, policy and opinion will be delivered
FREE by e-mail to your inbox each week. Simply link to —
http://PatriotPost.US/subscribe. If you don’t have Web access,
send a blank e-mail to <subscribe@PatriotPost.US> and you will
be subscribed automatically.)

%d bloggers like this: