Archive for April, 2009

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

“Preserving our Freedoms, Protecting America”

April 19, 2009

Stolen with permission from Tracy at NO COMPROMISE

To: Chief Patrol Officers Paul Beeson &
Roll
Yuma Border Patrol Sector
4035 S. Ave A
Yuma, AZ 85365-5002
(928) 341-6500  Fax: 928.341.6682
Committee on Homeland Security Democrats
Committee on Homeland Security Republicans

Dear Officers Beeson and Roll,

At the top of the website at the Department of Homeland security it states:

“Preserving our Freedoms, Protecting America”

Really?  I don’t think so!  I think this statement is supposed to make us FEEL safe,  not actually BE safe from those who want to take away our Rights and Freedom!

Let me start off by saying I am not the direct victim, I am an INDIRECT VICTIM!

On April 15th, your border patrol agents, Diaz, Griffin, and Gomez stopped an American Citizen, Steve Anderson,  at a checkpoint on I-8 near Aztec, AZ.  Their claim for the stop was that their drug dog detected a scent.

When American Citizen Anderson exercised his Fourth Amdt Natural Right to be secure in his person, property, papers, and effects, Anderson requested that the dog be brought back to do a second walk around his car.  When that minor request was denied by those who made the accusation, Anderson’s car was severely vandelized, he was forced from his car, mercilessly beaten, and tazzed,  and a boot pushed down on his face into broken glass.

View youtube video and blog post here>  http://www.nocompromisemedia.com/?p=5902

I have a question for you, Chief Beeson and Roll,

Is it normal for drug runners and human traffickers to request that drug sniffing dogs returned to their vehicle for a second walk around?

I think not, so why did the agents not comply with this tax paying American Citizen’s request?  Why did this clearly abnormal request not cause the agents to stop and think perhaps this guy is safe, and legal and not a threat?

Why wasn’t the dog brought back to the Citizen for a second walk around?  Do you really believe you do not have to prove your accusation,  and need no warrant for these BASELESS and LYING accusations against American Citizens? Is the assertion of a Fourth Amdt Right NOW a crime deserving of torture?

This is the oath Gomez, Griffin, and Diaz, I am assuming,  swore to uphold,  on the day they started to serve us America Citizens:

I, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

And as a reminder to you and your Agents, the servants of this Great Nation,  and servants to us American Citizens:  The fourth Amendment states:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

No Warrant was issued because there was no probable cause.  There was no probable cause because Citizen Anderson requested the dog to be returned to his vehicle!

Furthermore, no oath can ever be based upon a lie.  The truth is, is that the dog did not smell any drugs or humans in Anderson’s car,  or the agents would have brought back the dog to demonstrate that fact. The arrogance that these agents displayed is outrageous and appalling and deserve action to be taken against them!!

Anderson’s Rights were violated and it is a blotch of shame,  not only on the agents who violated this man’s Rights, but you as leaders, for not enforcing the oath you all took when you decided to serve US! Integrity and Truth is critical and non-negotiable when serving in this capacity.  The American Citizen depends on integrity and Truth and once that is gone we have tyranny which is terrorism, domestic terrorism against the American People!

Yes, it’s probably pretty hard for you to see that you and your men were involved with a tyrannical act,  but that is how a lot of us Americans see what happen to Anderson. This is a simple objective fact!
Tyranny hides behind a badge whereas terrorism doesn’t!

What’s the point in you and your men to take the oath of office if you refuse to uphold American Citizen’s Rights? Yes, I know there is a war going on at the border,  but that does NOT give you,  or your men,  or the US government the Supreme Right to violate our Natural Rights!

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”  Ben Franklin, Founding Father,  and Signer to the Declaration of Independence.

I am a supporter of the Border Patrol,  but not before my Constitution.

Your men have brains, sir, and can exercise judgment because of their experience and when an American Citizen requests that those who are accusing him PROVE why they are accusing him,  and the government refuses that is grounds for these perpetrators to be fired for the violation of our Rights,  and prosecuted for assault, kidnapping and property vandalism, and more importantly the violation of Civil Rights done under the color of Law!

When one American Citizen’s Rights are violated,  all American Citizen’s Rights have been violated!
You have no excuse whatsoever, to destroy Anderson’s property, assault him, violate his Rights, humiliate him,  and all done on the excuse that you are fighting a drug war!

Your men acted like jack-booted thugs and as an American Citizen I am appalled at their actions and will make sure that everyone I know hears about what your agents have done under your authority, and that they know that the  YUMA station is filled with agents we, American Citizens, CAN NOT trust!

Terrorists  hiding behind badges we pay for! How despicable!

  • It’s a sad day in America right now,  and this behavior doesn’t help!
  • It’s a sad day that most Americans can’t trust their government anymore!
  • It’s a sad day that we are called racists,  and can’t profile the real terrorists!
  • It’s a sad day that we can’t torture the real terrorists, but American Citizens can be tortured with tasers and boots standing on our heads while glass is embedded into our faces!!


I hope to God, your sons never go through that humiliation!

I do expect an answer back from both of you on this issue,  and be advised that I have posted this violation of Rights on my blog,  and you are more than welcome to answer the charges to that American people who pay for the privilege of being beat for defending their own Rights because your men wouldn’t uphold our Rights!

The Border Patrol does not need bad PR right now when it’s desperately seeking TRUSTWORTHY people to work to fight the real terrorists!

I have emailed and faxed this letter to the border patrol agents, Arizona’s US representatives, and senators, the Attorney General, many bloggers, and Citizen Steve Anderson.

Government tyranny MUST BE STOPPED right now!  And you as, leaders,  must head that charge!

It is NOT impossible for you to defend our borders,  and our Constitutional Rights at the same time. It has been done for over 200 years in this greatest Nation!

In conclusion,
I really believe that you leaders mock the American People,  and you laugh at us when we assert our Rights because you believe there will no consequences for these atrocities and crimes against the American people,  and as cowards hide behind sovereign immunity!

Why should you get immunity when an American Citizen can’t get his Rights? If you deny us our Rights your immunity should be denied You!

A very concerned American Citizen,
Tracy (last name withheld for fear of her government)
Washington state

CC:
Many American Citizens via email and blog posts
Pastor Steven Anderson   Info@faithfulwordbaptist.org
AZ AG  Terry Goddard Fax 602.542.4085
Rep. Raul M. Grijalva  fax (202) 225-1541
Rep.  Trent Franks fax 202.225.6328
Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick fax 202.226.9739
Rep. John Shadegg  fax 202.225.3462
Rep. Ed Pastor fax (202) 225-4065
Rep. Harry Mitchell  fax  (480) 946-2446
Rep. Jeff Flake fax 202.226.2635
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords Fax: (202) 225-0378
Sen. Jon Kyl fax 202.224.2207
Sen. John McCain 202.228.2862
ATTN:  Committee on Homeland Security Democrats Fax: (202) 226-4499
ATTN:  Committee on Homeland Security Republicans Fax: 202.226.3399
Sheriff Arpio emailed:  http://mcso.org/index.php?a=GetModule&mn=Contact_Us&p=pubcom
Ernesto Gomez ernesto.gomez@dhs.gov
Cesar Y. Diaz cesar.diaz@dhs.gov

Tags:, ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 4 Comments »

Wag the Dog

April 18, 2009

Since getting absolutely hammered every time they mention increased gun control the impostor in chief and his administration is taking a play from the Clinton era, and wagging the attack dogs of the mainstream media at the American people.Read on…

President Obama, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Attorney General Eric Holder are downplaying gun control, at least for the time being. But the so-called “news” media have begun hammering away on guns with the same intensity they did in the early 1990s, when the outcomes of the Brady bill and “assault weapons” debates were still undecided.

You have to wonder why the media think they, and not the public, know best what direction the country should take. Annual polls show that Americans’ confidence in newspapers and television news has decreased to a mere 24 percent. During the last few years of President George W. Bush’s administration, the media sanctimoniously and incessantly reminded us that the president’s approval ratings were near the lowest in history, yet in every single year of the Bush administration, Americans’ confidence in the president exceeded their confidence in the media. Even with the nation’s recent economic problems, largely blamed on big banks, Americans have more confidence in banks than in the media.

Yet, in their supreme arrogance, many in the media still believe the American people cannot function, that society and perhaps civilization itself will collapse, without the moral and intellectual guidance of those who, having been to journalism school, are the world’s leading experts on all subjects under the sun, including gun control.

It must be strange on their planet.

For example, take ABC “20/20’s” recent attempt to convince us that neither good private citizens nor police officers are able to use guns effectively for protection, but somehow criminals are. At the end of her not-as-clever-as-she-thought hatchet job on guns, Diane Sawyer ever-so-smugly added, “by the way, if you’re wondering where are all those studies about the effectiveness of guns used by ordinary Americans for self-defense, well, we couldn’t find one reliable study.”

As if they even bothered to look.

The landmark study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, showing hundreds of thousands of successful defensive gun uses annually, was reliable enough to be endorsed by the leading anti-gun criminologist of the day, the late Marvin Wolfgang. And, as economist John Lott noted in a Fox News rebuttal to “20/20’s” pablum on Wednesday, “There have been 26 peer-reviewed studies published by criminologists and economists in academic journals and university presses. Most of these studies find large drops in crime [under Right-to-Carry laws]. Some find no change, but not a single one shows an increase in crime.”

Lott could have mentioned, but modestly did not, that his own comprehensive study of Right-to-Carry has survived a cacophony of half-baked attacks by the usual suspects. And whatever the results of Diane Sawyer’s contrived and anything-but-reliable classroom experiment, designed to “prove” ABC’s cockamamie theories about self-defense, every day in this country private citizens defend themselves and their families with guns.

Then there’s the delirious commentary of Dan Rodericks in the March 12 Baltimore Sun. He writes, “After the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and again after the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan in 1981, many of us believed the country would turn against guns – assault-style weapons and handguns in particular.”

“Assault-style weapons?” What do they have to do with those crimes? The “assault weapon” issue did not even exist until several years after the attempt on President Reagan, which involved a small-caliber revolver.

And why is Americans’ support for gun control lower than it has been in ages? Rodericks is sure he has the answer. According to Rodericks, Americans oppose gun control not because they believe in freedom and self-protection, and not because they know criminals don’t obey gun laws, but because “There’s a pessimism and cynicism about the kind of society we’ve become and the uncertain future we face. . . . It’s an epidemic of resignation.” Translation: “I’ve been to journalism school, and I’m exasperated by the fact that the vast majority of Americans still don’t agree with me.” It brings to mind the late ABC News anchor Peter Jennings, in 1994, characterizing voters as “angry two-year-old(s)” throwing a “temper tantrum” by voting Republicans into control of Congress, against Jennings’ wishes, of course.

More drivel comes from the pen of that most superficial and trite of opinion spouters, PBS’ Mark Shields. On Sunday, Shields wrote that Congress doesn’t impose more gun control because its members “lack . . . . backbone.” Congress, says Shields, allowed the “assault weapon” ban to expire because congressmen are in need of a “a vertebrae transplant.” Oh, how we would like to see Shields say that straight to the face of Rep. John Dingell, Sen. Max Baucus, or scores of others on Capitol Hill, who have forgotten more about the issue than Shields will ever know.

Of course, no modern media blitzkrieg against guns would be complete without Michael Isikoff, during the 1990s the Washington Post’s hit man on “assault weapons” and now performing the same function at Newsweek. In the April 20 issue of that magazine, Isikoff wrote about Mexico’s drug cartels being armed with “high-powered assault weapons” from the United States, when it has already been established that most of the cartels’ weapons are not “assault weapons,” and only a minority have been traced to the United States. But what can you expect from a “reporter” whose “in-depth” research consists of skimming the Brady Campaign’s latest press release?

Thanks to Isikoff on two things, however. If there were any doubt about the Obama Administration’s eventual gun control plans, Isikoff says that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), author of bills in earlier congresses to drastically expand the former “assault weapon” ban, “pressed Obama transition officials to take up the issue” but they told her “that’s not for now, that’s for later.” (Emphasis added.)

And Isikoff quotes Brady Campaign’s Peter Hamm as saying “When you see people like Eric Holder or Hillary Clinton or Rahm Emanuel become muted on this issue, you feel like you want to call up a friend and say, ‘What’s up?'” (Emphasis added, again.)

Writing for the largest newspaper in America’s largest city, and hopelessly out of touch with America west of the Lincoln Tunnel, the New York Times‘ Bob Herbert on Tuesday expressed skepticism about Right-to-Carry, particularly on college campuses (because, as John Lott has noted, legislation to allow carrying on campuses is making progress in some states). But, unable to come to grips with the fact that people really do use guns to protect themselves successfully every day, Herbert defaulted to whining that America is “a society that is neither mature nor civilized enough to do anything” about the criminal use of guns.

And a Washington Post editorial the same day, dedicated to portraying the Virginia Tech murders as justification for gun show legislation in Virginia—even though no gun involved in the murders came from a gun show—went on to claim that “None of the gunmen [in recent multiple victim shootings] could have done as much damage had he [sic] not had access to guns.” Apparently the Post’s editorial staffers have been too busy typing up opinions to read the paper’s news section; otherwise, they would know that the worst mass murders in American history have been committed with jet airliners, explosives and flames, not with firearms.

Whether the media will be able to prod the most powerful elected officials in the country into attacking the Second Amendment remains to be seen. But, in the meantime, is it any wonder that the American people hold the media in such low regard?

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, Men's Issues, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 6 Comments »

Too little, too late..

April 18, 2009

The DHS put it’s foot in it’s mouth, got caught doing that, then attempted to reconcile that act by stuffing the other foot in their mouth…

This past week, gun owners, veterans, and many others were incensed by a report released by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that identified broad categories of people as potential terror threats based on their political beliefs, including a support for the Second Amendment.

The report, entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment“ was started in 2008 and completed and released recently. Its purpose was to highlight “rightwing” extremists who could become or be planning acts of violence; but the inclusion of groups as potential threats based simply on their political views has created a significant backlash.

In one passage, the report stated, “The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.”

The report went on: “Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government.  The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement.”

In other words, DHS is concerned that people are buying firearms and ammunition out of concern that the administration will live up to its campaign promises.

In a passage that clearly shows antagonism to those who oppose anti-Second Amendment policies, the report says: “Weapons rights and gun-control legislation are likely to be hotly contested subjects of political debate in light of the 2008 Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller in which the Court reaffirmed an individual’s right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but left open to debate the precise contours of that right.  Because debates over constitutional rights are intense, and parties on all sides have deeply held, sincere, but vastly divergent beliefs, violent extremists may attempt to co-opt the debate and use the controversy as a radicalization tool.”

How insulting is it to claim that gun owners can’t be trusted to oppose gun restrictions without turning to violence?

The report’s characterization of so many groups of Americans as potential terrorists, based on their legitimate political beliefs, is an outrageous attack on free political discourse in America.

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano has now apologized, as she should have, for the inclusion of returning veterans in the list of potential threats. But she has yet to make any apology to the millions of law-abiding American gun owners who have also been unjustly maligned.

SOURCE

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, mysandry, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

Gun Control on the High Seas

April 18, 2009

This is something that needs to be addressed at the Law of the Sea Treaty meetings. Rather than the draconian attempts at taking down America they should in fact be learning from the American experience.

Written by John Velleco
Monday, 13 April 2009 15:38
Americans received a special gift this Easter Sunday with the rescue of Capt. Richard Phillips, who had been held hostage for several days after his ship, the Maersk Alabama, was raided by pirates.

The raiding of the Maersk created an international crisis and an around the clock media sensation.  Millions of people around the globe were riveted to their TVs, praying and hoping for Capt. Phillips’ safety as the U.S. Navy moved massive vessels into the area.  In the end, the brave Captain freed himself and well-trained U.S. snipers took out three of the four pirates.

The obvious question that was seldom asked during the tense standoff was, “How could so few terrorists (another word for pirates) overtake a vessel crewed by five times as many people?”

After all, couldn’t the crew have just shot the invaders as they tried to board the ship?

Maybe they could have if they had firearms onboard, but container ships like the Maersk are generally prohibited from carrying firearms because of gun laws in the countries of various ports of departure and entry.  Shipping companies and crews don’t dare violate these gun bans because the penalties can be severe.

For example, in Kenya, where the Maersk was headed, the government is expected to soon make possession of an unlicensed firearm a capital offense.  Currently the offense carries a long prison sentence.

And for those who might think a foreign government would never penalize a ship that was obviously armed to repel pirate attacks, consider the case of Australian businessman and yachtsman Chris Packer.

In 2004, Packer was in the midst of an around-the-world tour when his yacht was boarded by government officials at a port in Bali, Indonesia.  On board were two pump-action shotguns, a rifle, two pistols and an inoperable antique firearm.

Indonesian authorities contemplated the charge of “gun running,” a capital offense.  Packer’s firearms, which he declared at other Indonesian ports, were purchased specifically for defense against pirates.

Packer’s friend and former America’s Cup winner, Sir Peter Blake, was shot and killed by pirates who boarded his vessel at the mouth of the Amazon River in 2001.  After that incident, Packer delayed his own planned trip to South America in order to obtain arms for protection.  Packer’s vessel was twice boarded by pirates, and he believes he would certainly be dead were he not armed.

Packer spent about three months in jail in Bali, never sure he would escape the firing squad.  Eventually, authorities in Bali convicted Packer on the lesser charge of not declaring his firearms upon entering the port and released him with time served.

Commercial shipping companies simply can’t risk violating the draconian gun laws of other countries, so they instead run the risk of being defenseless against pirates in hostile waters.

The outrageous but predicable result of laws that are intended to disarm criminals is that gigantic commercial vessels like the Maersk are vulnerable to attack from small groups of thugs in little motorboats.

The arguments for self-defense firearms possession are the same on the sea as they are on land — only at sea the need is even greater.

When a criminal attack occurs, almost always the only people present are the thugs and the victims.  On land, police are usually minutes away.  On the sea, help can be hours or even days away.  The sea-terrorists know this, and they know that mariners are normally unarmed.

Ships that are able to employ armed guards have been able to repel pirates.  Captain Kelly Sweeney of Washington State told FOX News that armed guards thwarted a pirate attack on a vessel he was on in the Dominican Republic.

Capt. Sweeney’s recipe for self-defense at sea?  Either hire armed guards to protect the ship, or else arm the crew members.

Anti-gunners will make the same arguments about arming maritime crew members as they do about arming anyone on land.  “Oh, the ships will be more dangerous with all those guns on board.”  But, as we’ve learned the hard way on both land and sea, “gun free zones” simply make easy targets for criminals.

How was Capt. Phillips ultimately saved?  By people armed with rifles.  These people happened to be on a Navy ship.  If there were no military vessels in the area, the outcome could have been tragically different.  As is often the case, the criminal attack ended when armed assailants were met with armed resistance.

While we can’t change the extreme anti-gun laws of other countries, the American government should insist that American-controlled vessels will not be unilaterally disarmed and that crew members will be permitted to carry firearms onboard for their own protection.

SOURCE

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

CIFTA, and the NRA

April 18, 2009

CIFTA is yet another attempt by those that hate American freedom and liberty to undermine our Constitution and Bill of Rights. The NRA acts yet again like a broken clock. I can’t wait for the G.O.A. assessment…

During an official visit to Mexico on April 16, President Obama announced his support for Senate ratification of an inter-American treaty on firearms trafficking. In response, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox issued the following statement:

“The NRA is well aware of the proposed Organization of American States treaty on firearms trafficking, known by its Spanish initials as CIFTA. The NRA monitored the development of this treaty from its earliest days, but contrary to news reports today, the NRA did not ‘participate’ at the meeting where the treaty was approved.

“The treaty does include language suggesting that it is not intended to restrict ‘lawful ownership and use’ of firearms. Despite those words, the NRA knows that anti-gun advocates will still try to use this treaty to attack gun ownership in the U.S. Therefore, the NRA will continue to vigorously oppose any international effort to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding American gun owners

SOURCE

Well, I didn’t have to wait long! 😀

President Obama Continues Assault on the Second Amendment
By John Velleco
Director of Federal Affairs

President Obama is determined to eradicate the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens.

In recent meetings with Mexican President Felipe Calderón, the American President promised to urge the U.S. Senate to pass an international arms control treaty.

The treaty, cumbersomely titled the “Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials” (known by the acronym CIFTA), was signed by President Bill Clinton, but never ratified by the Senate.

President Obama is hoping to capitalize on an increased Democrat majority and push its quick ratification.  The U.S. is one of four nations that have not ratified the treaty.President Obama with Mexican President Felipe Calderón

If ratified and the U.S. is found not to be in compliance with any provisions of the treaty — such as a provision that would outlaw reloading ammunition without a government license — President Obama would be empowered to implement regulations without Congressional approval.

Supporters of CIFTA claim the treaty is not a threat to the Second Amendment, but only a “symbolic” gesture.  But symbolic of what?  That America really is to blame for problems of violence and drug gangs in a foreign country?  That the American government can be pressed by a foreign country to alter the Second Amendment?

If the kind of “change” that Obama wants is for the United States to take its marching orders from third world countries regarding our gun rights, we’re in big trouble!

The fact is, this treaty will do NOTHING to combat the violence in Mexico, but it will go a LONG WAY toward eroding our ability to protect the right to keep and bear arms through our elected officials. [Read more about CIFTA]

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 2 Comments »

Tea Party’s frivolouness?

April 18, 2009

From what I have seen, at least so far. The mainstream media has branded the “Tea Party’s” as being orchestrated by Washington insiders or right wing extremist hate groups, if they mentioned them at all that is.

When the reality is that they were grass roots initiated and led by people that actually do care about this nation, and the Constitution that it is based upon.

What follows is one mans response to the various accusations. Well done sir!

In response to “Tax protests were fake outrage being aimed at invisible issues” (op-ed, April 16): The April 15 Tea Parties, in which I proudly participated, were not led by Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck or any other talk radio/Fox News personalities. These were grass-roots efforts, started locally by people who are fed up with the federal government overstepping its constitutional powers, spending our tax dollars and mortgaging our children’s/grandchildren’s futures bailing out private industries that should be allowed to fail like any other business that does not provide goods or services that people want or need. Fox News simply chose to cover them, while the other networks either ignored or ridiculed them.

I am not opposed to taxes; the government needs money to perform its essential functions. However, propping up failing industries is not an essential function of government. I challenge anyone to cite the article and section of the U.S. Constitution that empowers the federal government to do this. And don’t try the old “general welfare” statement in Article I Section 8, either. As James Madison, primary author and widely regarded “father” of the Constitution stated: “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.”

As for Kelly Miller’s statement about wasting our money on military operations and hardware, the Constitution does specifically authorize these expenditures in Article I, Section 8. I agree that Bush and Cheney did waste our money and trample on the Constitution. They are not “my heroes.” I left the Republican Party long ago when it became the party of big government after Republicans took control, first of Congress and then the White House. In fact, I resent the Republicans of today who are complaining about big government and preaching fiscal conservatism now that they are on the outside looking in.

Full story here

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 2 Comments »

Global Warming, and other acts of idiocy…

April 16, 2009

Fresh from the golden dome on Colfax Avenue Greg Brophy keeps us up to date on the shenanigans of the saviors on the left that will “save” Colorado from itself…

Global Warming

A couple weeks ago the Colorado Senate passed a global warming joint resolution. It’s titled “Concerning Recognition of Colorado’s Cool Cities”, but it was really an Al Gore would be proud sop to carbon dioxide caused global warming.

As a side bar, I think Wray, Colorado (my home town) is the “coolest city” in the state. We have our own little stream running through town, nice hills and bluffs surrounding town, a couple of good places to eat, a nice swimming pool and the best coffee shop on the planet.

Back to the farce: Senator Rollie Heath from, you guessed it, Boulder, introduced the resolution.

Apparently he missed the memo from the eco-commies who changed the term “global warming” to “climate change” when it became apparent that while CO2 emissions continue to rise, global temperatures are going down. They have been for ten years.

Senators Renfroe and Lundberg had fun pointing out the facts about global warming. Senator Heath said, “I don’t want to get into an argument about global warming”.

At that point I went up and pointed out that he should at least make the case for his resolution, but I’d be voting against it because “anthropogenic global warming is a farce”.

End of debate: the resolution passed on a straight party line vote.

Blatant Disregard

We see another attempt by the Democrats to exert their will over the will of the people in HB09-1299.

It’s a bill that would lead to tossing out the electoral vote for President in return for a national popular vote.

It’s not that it would happen overnight. First more states would have to pass a similar bill; enough states to reach the magic number of 270 electoral votes have to pass bills to join the movement for it to go into effect.

So far four states have passed bills enacting this agreement into law. Colorado is poised to become a fifth.

I’m not sure if the Democrats are still sore about the 2000 election or what.

For the life of me, I can’t figure out why anyone in Colorado would throw away our swing-state status in favor of a national popular vote. Right now, Presidential candidates come to Colorado because there is some question where our nine electoral votes will go and through most of the election cycle, you can draw a scenario where our nine will make the difference in determining who will win.

Take away our nine and no one will care about our votes; no one will come here to campaign. The candidates will stick to the major population centers on the coasts and ignore “fly-over country”.

It’s really a horrible idea that has so many unintended consequences that everyone on the left seems to ignore.

Just like they ignore the will of the voters. In 2004 Coloradoans roundly rejected a change to our electoral college system 66-34.

That’s the blatant disregard.

Pinnacol Raid

Here’s the problem: state revenues are down, expectations for state spending are up (sounds like my family budget situation too).

So what are we going to do? Rob a bank? No, lets seize the money in an insurance company’s accounts, after all it looks like the insurance company, Pinnacol Assurance has more assets than liabilities.

Pinnacol is a workers compensation insurance company that was originally created by the state and then finally turned loose in 2002. At the time, their liabilities exceeded their assets by about $200 million. Now, their assets exceed their liabilities by about $600 million.

They are paying big dividends and have cut premiums by 42% over the past four years.

So the Democrats in Colorado (and two Republicans) have decided to take their “extra” money. That’ll teach them for being successful.

Two other states have tried the same thing in very similar situations and the courts in those states have sided with the insurance company. No telling what our activist Supreme Court will do, but I am positive the insurance company won’t just write the check because the Governor signs the bill that steals their money.

Expect a long protracted battle so ensue. The majority party has no plan for dealing with the defeat, except to close have of the colleges in the state.

I expected more from them.

The Budget

The Colorado Senate will pass a budget on Monday.

For the first time in my memory, it will be a pure work of fiction.

Colorado’s Constitution requires a balanced budget for each year. This one will be balanced by taking money $500 million from an insurance company. Money that will never show up because the insurance company won’t just hand the loot over.

I won’t bug you with all the details of the budget. It’s really a mess with Constitutionally mandated spending increase requirements in some areas, Constitutionally protected revenues in other areas and everyone wanting more.

The key take away is this: the money from the insurance company (Pinnacol Assurance) is never going to materialize. They aren’t just going to hand it over and I don’t think the court will let the state take it. Ultimately, we’ll have to come back and balance the budget again and this time truly hard choices will have to be made.

The immediate fall back provision is to cut colleges by another $300 million. That’s on top of the $100 million reduction in the rate of growth that they’ve already taken. A $300 million dollar cut would be a real cut and would probably lead to the closure of several schools. That’s completely unacceptable; we offered rational alternatives, but the other side turned them down.

This won’t be over for a while.

I have decided to join the world of FaceBook. I am not the most professional politician in the world, so I am actually using mine as it was intended – almost strictly for social purposes. If you want to “friend” me, search FB for Greg Brophy. I think this link will work: http://www.new.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/profile.php?id=1192617444&ref=profile

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Domestic Violence, Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Humor, Immigration, Law, Local Politics Colorado, Men's Issues, mysandry, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 5 Comments »

Propaganda 60 minutes style, Goebbels would be proud

April 16, 2009

This past Friday 60 Minutes knock off, 20/20 engaged yet again in propaganda that would put a smile on the face of  Joseph Goebbels. Talk about a set up! This supposedly scientific escapade was in fact an anti gun smear of the worst sort.

David Rittgers of the Cato Institute blows the cover off one of the worst examples of poor journalistic ethics that has been seen in quite some time. I used to really enjoy the program years ago. Now? I wonder how anyone with an I.Q. above room temperature can believe anything that they broadcast.

H/T to Opposing Views

Be sure to check the link for excellent comments!

By David Rittgers

ABC’s 20/20 did a hit piece on the Second Amendment and armed citizens on Friday night. The show responded to the growing sentiment that “if I only had a gun,” maybe an armed citizen could make a difference in a spree shooting such as the incidents at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University. In reality, it ought to be called “if I had ONLY a gun.” Picking people without concealed carry permits to represent the armed citizen and rigging the scenario to ensure that they don’t defeat your narrative is propaganda, not journalism.

Several college students are selected to represent the “armed student” hypothetical, given some marksmanship training, and armed with training guns that shoot paint bullets. The firearms instructor who trained them plays spree shooter and storms the room. All of the students are hit before they can effectively engage the mock spree shooter.

The show handicaps this scenario in favor of the attacker in several ways. First, none of the students selected are actual concealed handgun permit holders who carry daily and practice regularly. Those with more experience get it from shooting Airsoft guns or from a form of shooting that does not involve drawing from concealment. The poor performance of the students in hitting the attacker is supposedly explained by the lack of law enforcement firearms training.

The simulation is too narrowly construed to show the full impact of an armed response. First, the experiment is limited to one armed student in the first classroom that the spree shooter hits. At Virginia Tech, the spree shooter entered several rooms, so a student in any room other than the first would be able to draw, find a position of cover and concealment, point the gun at the door, and wait for the assailant to enter. Second, the experiment supposes that an intended victim pulling a gun and shooting back, even if not immediately effective, does nothing to stop the attack.

These results don’t reflect the reality of an armed citizen responding to a spree shooter. Contrary to what the firearms instructor says, it is not “too much for a normal person” to deal with. Often, the mere confrontation with an armed response takes them out of their revenge fantasy and derails the killing spree.

Some examples:

1997, Pearl, Mississippi: A 16-year old boy stabs his mother to death, then goes to the local high school to continue his rampage with a rifle.  An assistant principal hears the gunshots, retrieves a pistol from his truck, and confronts the assailant. The boy surrenders.

1998, Edinboro, Pennsylvania: A 14-year old boy opens fire at a high school graduation dance being held at a local restaurant. The restaurant owner confronts the boy with his shotgun, who surrenders.

2002, Appalachian Law School: Two law students with law enforcement and military backgrounds run to their cars, grab handguns, and stop an expelled law student on a rampage.

2005, Tyler, Texas: A distraught man ambushes his estranged wife and son as they are entering the courthouse for a child support hearing. After killing his wife and wounding several deputies, armed citizen Mark Wilson intervenes with his handgun and shoots the spree shooter. The shooter is wearing a flak jacket and kills Wilson with return fire. Wilson’s actions broke up the attack and gave law enforcement officers time to organize a response that ended with the shooter’s death. Wilson is later honored by the Texas legislature.

2005, Tacoma Mall: A spree shooter with a criminal record and five days’ worth of meth in his system opens fire at the Tacoma Mall. Concealed carry permit holder Dan McKown intervenes, but gives a verbal warning instead of shooting. McKown is shot and receives a spinal injury that leaves him paralyzed, but the shooter retreated into a store and took some hostages after being confronted. After complaining about life’s travails to his hostages for several hours, he is taken into custody and sentenced to 163 years in prison.

2007, New Life Church, Colorado: Volunteer security guard Jeanne Assam shoots a spree shooter as he enters the foyer of a church. The spree shooter’s blaze of glory is over, so he shoots and kills himself.

2008, Israel: A Palestinian man goes on a killing spree in the library of a seminary. Police officers stop at the door and do not go in after him.  Student Yitzhak Dadon draws his gun and engages the shooter, wounding him. Part-time student and Israeli Army officer David Shapira blows past the cops, demanding a hat to identify him as a police officer and not the assailant, before entering the building and killing the spree shooter.

2009, Houston, Texas: Distraught woman enters her father’s workplace and shoots one man with a bow and arrow. She points a pellet gun at two employees, both concealed handgun permit holders, who shoot her. Police show up and she points the pellet gun at them. They shoot her again and take her into custody.

The scenario is also unrealistic in that the student is seated dead center in the front row, a bad move for someone trying to conceal a gun on their hip under a T-shirt; far better in the back of the room in a corner. Plus, the spree shooter is expecting resistance and knows where the armed student will be, advantages that will not be replicated in the real world. In one iteration of the scenario, a second assailant is placed a couple of seats away from the armed student. When the armed student draws to shoot at the assailant, he is blindsided by the co-conspirator. This isn’t a result of “tunnel vision,” as the program would tell you. This is a rigging of the experiment. A second assailant in placed practically next to the armed student, while our amateur is wearing a face mask that restricts vision? No one, not even the firearms instructor playing spree shooter, would win in that situation.

There are no magical powers that accrue to a sworn officer, contrary to the anti-concealed carry propaganda this piece puts out. A recent NYPD Firearms Discharge Report shows that hit percentages for a major metropolitan police department never rise above the 50% mark, even within two yards of the assailant. Unsurprisingly, people who carry a gun and train with it consistently outperform those who do not. The FBI’s report “Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation’s Law Enforcement Officers” shows that criminals who beat cops in gunfights practiced regularly while their victims only averaged 14 hours of firearms training a year.

The only thing that stops a spree shooter is a bullet, either from their gun when they commit suicide or from someone else who intervenes to stop further loss of life. Law enforcement responses that quarantine the shooter compound the problem, while aggressive “active shooter” protocols that push police officers into the scene in small teams or as individuals tend to reduce casualties. The police response is moving toward being on the scene as fast as possible with a gun; we ought to follow their reasoning and allow people to have a fighting chance, not advise them to play dead and call the cops on their cell phone. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

On the bright side, 60 minutes had a more balanced segment on the recent surge in firearm sales and prospects for a revival of gun control in Congress.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, Men's Issues, mysandry, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 2 Comments »

Disinformation: Stupid is as stupid does redux

April 15, 2009

Ah, the better than thou crowd. At least they are consistent; Stupid is as stupid does on steroids, or crack, or maybe both? Such is the logic!

This week’s “Leftmedia Buster” Award: “David Shuster, filling in for MSNBC loose-cannon Keith Olbermann on his April 13 broadcast, and his writers probably thought they were pretty clever when they pieced an item denigrating the tax protests by using the [dirty] term ‘teabagging.'” –Jeff Poor of NewsBusters (to read the text of Shuster’s puerile dirty jokes if you dare, click here — Warning: Graphic puns.)

Doesn’t get it: “Republicans have become embarrassing to watch. And it doesn’t feel right to make fun of crazy people.” –New York Times columnist Paul Krugman on the tea parties taking place across the country today

Poor (but accurate) choice of words: [I]t’s fair to give the new kids on the block a chance to get their learner’s permits first.” –CBS’s Katie Couric on the Obama administration

Capitalism? Oh my!: “I’m worried if you think if [Goldman-Sachs paying back its federal loan early is] a good thing. Are they doing this because of financial stability or might they be talking about that, simply to get out from under the thumb of the federal government and be allowed to go back to running the business the way they want to run it as opposed to the way the government wants them to run it?” –NBC’s Matt Lauer to Christina Romer on Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers

Twisted blame: “That weekend tragedy [of the murder of three Pittsburgh police officers] involves a man who allegedly shot and killed three police officers in cold blood. Why? Because he was convinced, after no doubt watching Fox News and listening to right-wing radio, that quote, ‘Our rights were being infringed upon.'” –CNN’s Rick Sanchez

Oddly enough!: “If anything, the recent shootings have inspired more Americans to buy guns, recession or no recession. In fact, all over the country they are stocking up on as many pistols, rifles, and shotguns as possible before the Obama Administration bans or taxes them. … Interestingly, however, violent crime rates have at the same time been falling in Los Angeles, New York and other big American cities. The experts are at loss as to explain why this should be happening.” –London Times Los Angeles correspondent Chris Ayres

SOURCE

And then we have:

We Blame Global Warming: “Thaw Seems Near for U.S., Cuba” –St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Breaking News From 1980: “Thousands Demonstrate Against Georgian President” –The New York Times

Everything Seemingly Is Spinning Out of Control: “Cows With Gas: India’s Global Warming Problem” –Time.com

News You Can Use: “Obama Not the New Messiah: Archbishop” –ABC News Web site (Australia)

Bottom Stories of the Day: “Fewer Disney Employees Whistle While They Work” –CNN.com

(Thanks to The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto)

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

More on taxes

April 15, 2009

From today’s Patriot Post. (See sidebar) Some commentary on taxation as it is today, and a few ideas having to do with the subject.

“I say let’s have Election Day on tax day. Let’s get what we’re paying for. Sign the check — for the full amount — and write in your preferred candidates on the back of the same check. Abracadabra … smaller government, here we come.” –columnist Jonah Goldberg

“Rampant redistribution of wealth by government is now the norm. So is this: It inflames government’s natural rapaciousness and subverts the rule of law.” –columnist George Will

“Inflation also means that all the talk about how higher taxes will be confined to ‘the rich’ is nonsense. Inflation is a hidden tax that takes away the value of money held by everyone at every income level.” –economist Thomas Sowell

“[W]e need to return to a taxation system similar to the one established by our Founding Fathers. They did not penalize productivity through taxes the way we do today. They had no Internal Revenue Service. They believed in minimal taxation.” –columnist Chuck Norris

“Today American taxpayers in more than 300 locations in all 50 states will hold rallies — dubbed ‘tea parties’ — to protest higher taxes and out-of-control government spending. There is no political party behind these rallies, no grand right-wing conspiracy, not even a 501(c) group like MoveOn.org. So who’s behind the Tax Day tea parties? Ordinary folks who are using the power of the Internet to organize.” –author Glenn Harlan Reynolds

“[I]s there any limit to this administration’s intentions to interfere and perhaps control large swaths of our economy? … That’s the real message of the homegrown Tea Party revolt against bailout nation and the higher taxes, deficits, and debt being used to finance it. Folks are trying to tell Washington on Tax Day, April 15, that enough is enough. They can’t take it anymore.” –economist Larry Kudlow

“The cry at these tea parties should be ‘not a penny more’ until governments get their houses in order, just as we must do. Most people have been forced to reduce spending during the recession, but not the federal government, and likely not the government in your home state.” –columnist Cal Thomas

“President Obama’s own budget numbers show that Social Security this year will take in $654 billion in payroll taxes and dole out $662 billion in benefits and expenses — a negative cash flow of $8 billion. Uh oh.” –columnist Stephen Moore

“Today is tax day, and across America, taxpayers are holding tea parties to protest out-of-control government spending. Their concern is no tempest in a teapot. The tax burden on American families is growing increasingly heavy. According to the Tax Foundation, tax-freedom day came on April 13 this year. That day marks the point of the year when taxpayers have earned enough money to pay off their federal, state and local taxes. It takes Americans about 3 1/2 months of labor to cover their tax obligation. That time will increase as government continues to grow. President Obama’s current budget proposal admits to plans to raise taxes by almost $1 trillion over the next 10 years. Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) estimates that hundreds of thousands will turn out to protest this tax servitude. … Today’s tea parties are carrying on a noble American tradition of protesting unfair taxation. Mike Allen, co-author of ‘A Patriot’s History of the United States,’ explained to us: ‘America was born out of hatred of a strong centralized government. The Boston Tea Party (and a half dozen other concurrent tea parties from New York City to Charleston) protested government subsidies to create monopoly status for a corporation, the East India Company. From that point onward, tax protests have peppered American history.’ The first tea party to protest taxes occurred on Dec. 16, 1773, when patriots called the Sons of Liberty dressed as Mohawk Indians, boarded ships in Boston Harbor and threw 342 chests of tea overboard. Other colonials followed the lead of Sam Adams and his fellow Bostonians by tossing tea into the sea. Today’s tea-party movement is building steam because taxpayers are steamed. As ATR’s anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist explained … ‘These are real people with real lives taking the time and effort to do this in reaction not to a tax increase yesterday, but in reaction to too much spending that will lead to tax increases and inflation years from now.’ These modern Mohawks are angry because they fear the future is being poured down the drain. This kind of activism is our cup of tea.” —The Washington Times

Tags:, ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on More on taxes

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »