Archive for the ‘Law’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Obama Pushing Treaty To Ban Reloading

April 23, 2009

It appears that just about every day the impostor in chief comes up with another sneaky method to deprive us of our rights. read on…


-- Even BB guns could be on the chopping block

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Remember CANDIDATE Barack Obama?  The guy who "wasn't going to take away
our guns"?

Well, guess what?

Less than 100 days into his administration, he's never met a gun he
didn't hate.

A week ago, Obama went to Mexico, whined about the United States, and
bemoaned (before the whole world) the fact that he didn't have the
political power to take away our semi-automatics.  Nevertheless, that
didn't keep him from pushing additional restrictions on American gun
owners.

It's called the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing
of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other
Related Materials.  To be sure, this imponderable title masks a really
nasty piece of work.

First of all, when the treaty purports to ban the "illicit"
manufacture
of firearms, what does that mean?

1. "Illicit manufacturing" of firearms is defined as
"assembly of
firearms [or] ammunition... without a license...."

Hence, reloading ammunition -- or putting together a lawful firearm from
a kit -- is clearly "illicit manufacturing."

Modifying a firearm in any way would surely be "illicit
manufacturing."
And, while it would be a stretch, assembling a firearm after cleaning it
could, in any plain reading of the words, come within the screwy
definition of "illicit manufacturing."

2. "Firearm" has a similarly questionable definition.

"[A]ny other weapon" is a "firearm," according to
the treaty -- and the
term "weapon" is nowhere defined.

So, is a BB gun a "firearm"?  Probably.

A toy gun?  Possibly.

A pistol grip or firing pin?  Probably.  And who knows what else.

If these provisions (and others) become the law of the land, the Obama
administration could have a heyday in enforcing them.  Consider some of
the other provisions in the treaty:

* Banning Reloading.  In Article IV of the treaty, countries commit to
adopting "necessary legislative or other measures" to criminalize
illicit manufacturing and trafficking in firearms.

Remember that "illicit manufacturing" includes reloading and
modifying
or assembling a firearm in any way.  This would mean that the Obama
administration could promulgate regulations banning reloading on the
basis of this treaty -- just as it is currently circumventing Congress
to write legislation taxing greenhouse gases.

* Banning Gun Clubs.  Article IV goes on to state that the criminalized
acts should include "association or conspiracy" in connection
with said
offenses -- which is arguably a term broad enough to allow, by
regulation, the criminalization of entire pro-gun organizations or gun
clubs, based on the facilities which they provide their membership.

* Extraditing US Gun Dealers. Article V requires each party to "adopt
such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the
offenses it has established in accordance with this Convention" under a
variety of circumstances.

We know that Mexico is blaming U.S. gun dealers for the fact that its
streets are flowing with blood.  And we know it is possible for Mexico
to define offenses "committed in its territory" in a very
broad way.
And we know that we have an extradition obligation under Article XIX of
the proposed treaty.  So we know that Mexico could try to use the treaty
to demand to extradition of American gun dealers.

Under Article XXIX, if Mexico demands the extradition of a lawful
American gun dealer, the U.S. would be required to resolve the dispute
through "other means of peaceful settlement."

Does anyone want to risk twenty years in a sweltering Mexican jail on
the proposition that the Obama administration would apply this provision
in a pro-gun manner?

* Microstamping.  Article VI requires "appropriate markings" on
firearms.  And, it is not inconceivable that this provision could be
used to require microstamping of firearms and/or ammunition -- a
requirement which is clearly intended to impose specifications which are
not technologically possible or which are possible only at a
prohibitively expensive cost.

* Gun Registration.  Article XI requires the maintenance of any records,
for a "reasonable time," that the government determines to be
necessary
to trace firearms.  This provision would almost certainly repeal
portions of McClure-Volkmer and could arguably be used to require a
national registry or database.

ACTION:  Write your Senators and urge them to oppose the Inter-American
Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms,
Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.

Please use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the
pre-written e-mail message below.

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

I am urging you, in the strongest terms, to oppose the Inter-American
Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms,
Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.

This anti-gun treaty was written by international bureaucrats who are
either stupid or virulently anti-gun -- or both.

This treaty could very well ban the ability to reload ammunition, to put
new stocks on rifles lawfully owned by American citizens, and, possibly,
even ban BB guns!

There are too many problems with this treaty to mention them all in this
letter.  The rest can be read on the website of Gun Owners of America
at:
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0901.htm

Please do not tell me the treaty has not yet been abused in this way by
the bevy of Third World countries which have signed it.  We do not
expect the real ramifications of the treaty to become clear until the
big prize -- the U.S. -- has stepped into the trap.

For all of these reasons, I must insist that you oppose ratification of
the treaty.

Sincerely,


Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hunting Fishing and the Great Outdoors, Law, Men's Issues, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 4 Comments »

More about “Right Wing Terrorist’s”

April 23, 2009

The firestorm that unleashed last week over the DHS report on “right wing terrorists” has not abated. In fact, it appears to have heated up. Half hearted apologies don’t come across as sincere to say the least. Some people have also pointed out that this past January there was another report about possible terrorist groups with a left wing tilt. Sorry, that report didn’t lump entire groups into the category of terrorist like this latest assessment from DHS did. So then what are people saying?

“The idea that American ‘hate groups’ are right-wing and bristling with vets got new life with JFK’s assassination at the hands of a disgruntled vet named Lee Harvey Oswald. Everybody knew right away that Oswald was an agent of ‘hate’ — and hate was code for right-wing and racist. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren summed up the instantaneous conventional wisdom when he blamed the ‘climate of hatred’ for Kennedy’s death. Everybody knew that the right was involved. There was just one inconvenient truth: Oswald was a communist who, according to the Warren report, had ‘an extreme dislike of the rightwing’ and had actually tried to murder a right-wing former Army general. When Hollywood filmed the Tom Clancy novel ‘The Sum of All Fears,’ it changed the real villains from Jihadi terrorists to a bunch of European CEOs who were secret Nazis. Because ‘everybody knows’ that’s where the real threat lies. Sen. John Kerry belonged to an organization of vets that considered assassinating American politicians. (Kerry denied participating in those meetings.) Barack Obama was friends with, and a colleague of, a domestic terrorist whose organization plotted to murder soldiers and their wives at a social at Fort Dix. A young Hillary Clinton sympathized with the Black Panthers, a paramilitary gang of racist murders and cop killers. Bring that up and you’re a paranoid nutcase out of ‘Dr. Strangelove.’ But if you’re terrified of a bunch of citizens who throw tea in the water and demand lower taxes and less government spending, well, that’s just a sign of political seriousness. Because everyone knows who the real threat to the country is.” –National Review editor Jonah Goldberg

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

On the Tea Parties

April 23, 2009

The “Tea Parties” were viewed, if at all, by the MSM as some sort of anachronism if not with out and out antagonism. Branding the participant’s as “tea baggers,” the term used in a deviant manner. I suppose that is to be expected from a profession that has sank into the depths that, for the most part reflects an utter lack of moral fortitude. But, then again it was these same people that brought to you the term “Saturday Night Special.”

Too wit the blond with a brain adds this commentary:

“The point of the tea parties is to note the fact that the Democrats’ modus operandi is to lead voters to believe they are no more likely to raise taxes than Republicans, get elected and immediately raise taxes. Apparently, the people who actually pay taxes consider this a bad idea. Obama’s biggest shortcoming is that he believes the things believed by all Democrats, which have had devastating consequences every time they are put into effect. Among these is the Democrats’ admiration for raising taxes on the productive. All Democrats for the last 30 years have tried to stimulate the economy by giving ‘tax cuts’ to people who don’t pay taxes. Evidently, offering to expand welfare payments isn’t a big vote-getter. Even Bush had a ‘stimulus’ bill that sent government checks to lots of people last year. Guess what happened? It didn’t stimulate the economy. Obama’s stimulus bill is the mother of all pork bills for friends of O and of Congressional Democrats. … And all that government spending on the Democrats’ constituents will be paid for by raising taxes on the productive. Raise taxes and the productive will work less, adopt tax shelters, barter instead of sell, turn to an underground economy — and the government will get less money. … The lie at the heart of liberals’ mantra on taxes — ‘tax increases only for the rich’ — is the ineluctable fact that unless taxes are raised across the board, the government won’t get its money to fund layers and layers of useless government bureaucrats, none of whom can possibly be laid off.” –columnist Ann Coulter

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

Thomas Sowell on gun control

April 23, 2009

Yes, I know  that there are some people that have a great deal more patience than I do. I admit that there are times when I just get fed up explaining the obvious over and over. Time, and time again it goes on… In any case, Thomas Sowell, someone that I have great respect for attempts yet again to explain the great mysteries of life to the uninitiated.

“Some of our biggest political fallacies come from accepting words as evidence of realities. …[For example,] ‘gun control’ laws do not control guns. The District of Columbia’s very strong laws against gun ownership have done nothing to stop the high murder rate in Washington. New York had very strong gun control laws decades before London did. But the murder rate in New York has been some multiple of that in London for more than two centuries, regardless of which city had the stronger gun control laws at a given time. Back in 1954, when there were no restrictions on owning shotguns in England and there were far more owners of pistols then than there were decades later, there were only 12 cases of armed robbery in London. By the 1990s, after stringent gun controls laws were imposed, there were well over a thousand armed robberies a year in London. In the late 1990s, after an almost total ban on handguns in England, gun crimes went up another ten percent. The reason — too obvious to be accepted by the intelligentsia — is that law-abiding people became more defenseless against criminals who ignored the law and kept their guns.” –Hoover Institution economist Thomas Sowell

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 7 Comments »

Obama: The gift that keeps on giving!

April 22, 2009

Whether it’s tax evasion, exploding trial balloons having to do with gun control or your free speech rights the Democrats just can’t seem to go a week without some new series of embarrassments.Does anyone else notice the Clinton “bait and switch” techniques that the administration’s using? I sure do! Get peoples minds off the gun control issue by changing the official position on taking intelligence offices from the Bush administration to trial for engaging in “torture that isn’t torture.”

This week is no different, and it is only Wednesday. Bribery is the name of the game today!

First up, we have none other than the Marine Corps biggest hypocrite and traitor to what the Corps holds dear, John Murtha. I don’t know any Marine that does not think Murtha deserves a blanket party, if not a firing squad. Semper Fi!

Read all about it!

Senator Diane Feinstein knows family value, as in keeping the cash there!

Cash Cow in the porkulus!

Can working on Intelligence in Congress make you a bit of dough? You bet it can! Not to mention get the attention of Madame Speaker while you are at it!

This is an absolute must read! Nearly the entire administration has some silk threads to this little bit of scandal!

Money money, there she goes again, my my, Jane Harman learns a lesson!

Deep Throat Democrat style.

Question; what do all the people involved in this have in common other than being a part of the Democrat family?

You guessed it! I knew ya could!

1: Gun Control and anti Second Amendment.

2: Anti First Amendment, unless you agree with them.

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Immigration, Law, mysandry, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 3 Comments »

Broken Clocks: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

April 21, 2009

As the saying goes even a broken clock shows the correct time twice a day. While this idea is most often used to apply to the field of economics it can be applied to their fields as well. The 9th U.S. Court of Appeals has been over turned more than any other. So much so that I will not even bother with citation. If your interested, and need some serious time reading convoluted logic, do a web search.

Well? I for one will give credit where credit is in fact due, now matter the source. The really big question though is will the FBI have to provide extra security for the Court? Further, will the members of said Court be considered Domestic Terrorist’s for actually bucking the current administration? Will San Fran Nancy Pelosi get her pantie hose all bound up over this? Will Eric Holder need to take more Rolaids?

(04-20) 19:10 PDT San Francisco — A federal appeals court ruled Monday that private citizens can challenge state and local gun laws by invoking the constitutional right to bear arms – the first such ruling in the nation – but upheld a ban on firearms at gun shows at the Alameda County Fairgrounds in Pleasanton.

The ruling by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco followed last year’s landmark Supreme Court decision that the Constitution’s Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess guns for self-defense.

The high court struck down a handgun prohibition in Washington, D.C., a federal enclave, and did not say whether the Second Amendment also applied to state and local laws. Nor did the court spell out the extent of the government’s authority to regulate firearms, although it said guns could be excluded from “sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.”

National Rifle Association lawsuits in the aftermath of the ruling prompted some local governments and agencies to abandon restrictive gun laws, including a ban on possession of guns and ammunition in public housing that the San Francisco Housing Authority dropped in January. But no court had ruled on the scope of the Second Amendment until Monday.

The case was a challenge by gun show promoters to a 1999 ordinance that banned firearms on all Alameda County property, including the fairgrounds, where 16 people had been injured in a melee that included gunfire the previous year. The court could have decided the case with its conclusion that the ban was a reasonable safety measure, without addressing the Second Amendment, but opted for a broader ruling.

While a few sections of the Bill of Rights apply only to the federal government, amendments that protect fundamental rights – including the Second Amendment – can be enforced against the states, said Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain in the 3-0 decision.

“The right to bear arms is deeply rooted in the history and tradition of the republic,” O’Scannlain said, citing selected passages from speeches and writings during the colonial and post-Revolutionary War period and the years leading up to the Civil War. “It is a means to protect the public from tyranny” as well as “to protect the individual from threats to life or limb.”

Judge Ronald Gould, in a separate opinion, pictured a gun-wielding citizenry defending 21st century America against invaders or terrorists.

“That we have a lawfully armed populace adds a measure of security for all of us and makes it less likely that a band of terrorists could make headway in an attack on any community before more professional forces arrived,” he said.

The judges concluded, however, that the Supreme Court’s reference to exclusion of guns from “sensitive places” allows a county to ban firearms from its property. The ordinance “does not meaningfully impede the ability of individuals to defend themselves in their homes,” O’Scannlain said, and county officials are entitled to conclude that guns sold at shows on the fairgrounds could be dangerous.

Donald Kilmer, lawyer for the gun show promoters, said they have not yet decided whether to appeal. He said other Bay Area counties – including San Mateo, Marin, Santa Cruz and Sonoma – have emulated the Alameda County ban, despite what he described as a lack of evidence linking the gun shows to any crimes or violence.

“The county was never able to point to any problems,” Kilmer said. “Isn’t it a good idea for gun shows, if they’re going to take place, to be on public property” patrolled by law enforcement?

The county’s lawyer was unavailable for comment. Sam Hoover, an attorney with Legal Community Against Violence, which supports gun regulation, said the court had needlessly opened the door to challenges of other state and local laws.

“We already have a patchwork, piecemeal system of gun regulation in the United States,” he said. “This is going to make it that much harder to stem the tide of gun deaths and injuries.”

SOURCE

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 5 Comments »

Global Warming, political correctness, and oh yeah…

April 21, 2009

Fat people are destroying the earth! Quick! Someone get a special international court set up! I mean..? After all, people simply cannot do anything at all about volcanoes, or the oceans, and certainly not the sun. But we sure as hell can come up with some stupid idea to further ridicule people that are over weight. Talk about political correctness…

Scientists: ‘Fat people cause global warming’
According to the study, the transportation and food costs of obese people are contributing to increasing energy prices and food defects.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009

LONDON (UPI) — Some British experts say fat people are contributing to global warming more than those who are thin because they require more food and fuel.

London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine scientists said the transportation and food costs of obese people are contributing to increasing energy prices and food defects.

“We are all becoming heavier and it is a global responsibility. Obesity is a key part of the big picture,” researcher Phil Edwards said.

Critics argue that food waste causes a much bigger strain on resources than obesity and it is unfair to blame overweight individuals for the world’s problems, The Daily Telegraph reported Saturday.

“Obese people have enough issues to deal with without being demonized for their impact on the environment. The truth is all people are an environmental burden,” said Keith-Thomas Ayoob of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York.

SOURCE

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

Some people just never learn…

April 20, 2009

Governor Ed Rendell is mentally ill. No, not just hopolophobia, he is full blown suicidal. In a political sense at least. he keeps up this “you (as in commoners) have no reason to need weapons like this.” Guess what retard common people do in fact need sophisticated weaponry. Have you ever heard of “Home Invasions?” Or gang attacks? Or any of a myriad of other situations that happen every day. Oh, and the “Mexican” problem? Try fighting back with a 22 when MS13 comes a calling…

On Sunday, April 19, NRA’s executive vice president Wayne LaPierre appeared on CBS’ Face the Nation. Wayne stressed that enforcing existing laws was the answer to curbing gun crime, and not enacting failed methods such as renewing the Clinton semi-automatic gun ban proposed by gun control advocates like Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell.

See Ed Squawk

Mister Ed loves to repeat lies that have been so disproved that most hopolophobes have already wised up, and stopped using the latest talking point!

When it comes to guns, President Obama is lying through his teeth. It is completely untrue that 90 percent of guns recovered in Mexico are from America. The Mexican government separates guns it confiscates that were made in the United States and sends them here to be traced. U.S. weapons are easy to identify because of clear markings.

SOURCE

“… the Obama administration is using the increasingly violent drug cartels in Mexico as an excuse to push for reinstating the ban on assault weapons.”

MORE

Ed Rendell appears to be running for a window seat in the short bus.

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

“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 »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »