Archive for the ‘Men’s Issues’ Category

Second Amendment March News

July 31, 2009

Things are progressing! This is the latest Second Amendment March Newsletter.

The Second Amendment March is proud to announce we are partnering with Front Sight Firearms Training Institute, www.frontsight.com, a world-renowned personal defense school located near Las Vegas, Nevada.  Dr. Ignatius Piazza, Four Weapons Combat Master and Founder and Director of Front Sight, has graciously offered to support the Second Amendment March by backing up his words with his money.

Dr. Piazza is a patriot and believes so strongly in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Second Amendment March that he is offering a FREE Two-Day Defensive Handgun course to any person who supports or attends the Second Amendment March in Washington DC or any of the 50 State Capitol Marches. Upon attending the DC March or any of the 50 State Capitol Marches you will receive a certificate redeemable for a Front Sight Two Day Defensive Handgun Course with no expiration date! That’s right! You heard me correctly. We’re talking about a $1,000 Two-Day Defensive Handgun Course at world-class Front Sight Firearms Training Institute FREE OF CHARGE simply for supporting the Second Amendment March! How can any patriotic American justify not supporting the Second Amendment March with an offer like that?

But wait! Dr. Piazza isn’t done! If you can’t make it to the DC March or any of the 50 State Capitol Marches to take advantage of this great offer, then read further… Dr. Piazza will extend this offer to any person who donates $100 or more to the Second Amendment March in the next 30 days! That’s how serious he is about the Right to Keep and Bear Arms! Please don’t miss this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity! Go now to www.frontsight.com to learn all about the classes Front Sight offers. This is a $1,000 class simply for doing the right thing in supporting the Second Amendment March!

Once again, thank you Dr. Piazza and Front Sight Firearms Training Institute for your generosity.
Note: When you make a $100 or more donation to Second Amendment March, the certificate will come directly from Front Sight Firearms Training Institute.  It generally arrives within 2-3 weeks of making your donation.

A Woman’s Journey Into Guns

by Marge Shoemaker
A few days ago, I was asked to tell my story about how I became interested in guns. To be honest, it wasn’t something I was born into, and it wasn’t something I practiced in my youth. It really was something that came upon me in the last few years.
I am the oldest of four children. As a young girl I was quiet and very shy, pretty much afraid of my own shadow. I especially didn’t like loud noises like balloons popping, fire crackers going off, you get the picture.

I was an avid animal lover. Every lost pet or stray found their way to my home. With some effort, I usually found their owners. In my junior high years, I became involved with saving the wild mustangs, wolves, you name it! I didn’t think too much of people hunting or shooting animals. Then in my high school years, I fell in love. Shortly after graduation, I married my best friend. Did I mention, he had a passion for hunting? Hunting!
Well, through the years, and two sons later (who also love hunting) I learned about harvesting wildlife. I learned to cook, or can, whatever my two boys and my husband brought home. I became quite good at it, but never, ever, did it interest me to shoot a gun. They go bang!

By now I was almost 50 years old. One day my husband was sighting in his new 17 caliber rifle when I walked outside and said I wanted to start shooting. I had only one condition:  no guns with a loud bang or kick. He smiled a smile that made my heart skip a beat. Then he said, have a seat. He showed me how to hold the gun tight to my shoulder, how to look down the scope, take the safety off, and just squeeze the trigger. Hey, no loud bang or kick! I actually enjoyed it. I’ve been practicing for two years now.
Recently, I had a van load of suspicious-looking men come to my house which sits in the country way back off the road. I felt threatened and asked them to leave. One man grew angry and they wouldn’t leave my door step. I picked up my shotgun and stood in front of the doorway.
Marge works for a local school district in Michigan. She is a mom and grandmother and has been married for 33 years. She is a fan of country music and Jeff Gordon! Marge lives by these words:  “If you are a friend of mine, you are considered family. There is no greater love than she who would lay down her life for a friend. And I would. I love my God, and my country.”

Interviews and Speaking Engagements

Skip Coryell, Second Amendment March Founder, will be speaking about the March on the following dates:
The David Jericho Radio Show
Click here to Podcast
Monday, August 3rd at 8AM EST

Patriots in the Park Rally
Saturday, August 15th
Springfield, Missouri
Email Matt for more info: Matt@mattcanovi.com

Second Amendment Town Hall Meeting


Western Wayne County Conservation Association (WWCCA), go to http://www.wwcca.com or call (734) 453-9843

August 5
Plymouth, MI
Starts at 7:30PM

Interview wwith KVOI Radio, Charles Heller
Listen live or podcast by clicking here
http://libertywatchradio.com/
Sunday, August 30th at 3PM

Calling all College Students

College Volunteers –

There are a multitude of American college students interested in
making a difference for America. Please help us tap a
sometimes-overlooked reservoir of energy and enthusiasm by letting them know about SAM!

For any college students interested in promoting the Second Amendment March on your campus, please contact Drew Rankin (a Vanderbilt student) at mdrewrankin@gmail.com.

Around the ‘Net

Here is a great video from Rev. Kenn Blanchard, host of The Urban Shooter Podcast and owner of blackmanwithagun.com.
Freedom and the Second Amendment

New State Coordinators

Alabama
2A marchEd Anderson is our state coordinator for Alabama.
Ed is a Veteran of the Vietnam era and has over 25 + years as a credentialed Field Paramedic.  He has been an  NRA member since he was old enough to join, and is also a member of USCCA, GOA, and Numbers USA.  Ed’s interests include diving, piloting, amateur inventing, hunting, reloading, and target shooting.

Ed Anderson

Arizona

2A march

Terri Proud is our state coordinator for Arizona.
Terri has lived in Arizona for over 15 years. She is an NRA Member and a USCCA Member. Terri is active with the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and has previously lobbied on Women and Children Issues.
Terri Proud
520-403-1134

Arkansas

2A march
Steve Skillern is our Coordinator for Arkansas.
Steve is a retired Army Major and an NRA Training Counselor in Rifle, Pistol, Shotgun, Personal Protection and Home Firearm Safety, an Arkansas Concealed Carry Instructor, a 4-H committee member and Shotgun Instructor.
Steve Skillern
870-897-3300

Maine
2A marchChris Brochu is our Coordinator for Maine.
Chris has been an NRA member for 12 years and a concealed carry permit holder for about the same. He enjoys hunting, hiking, fishing, shooting and of course, he loves the Second Amendment. Chris says he is “ready for the challenge” and looks forward to working with all of you.
Chris Brochu
New York
2A march Brian Belz is our Coordinator for New York.
Brian has a BA in sociology and is currently working on his masters degree in social work. He is committed to social justice through the preservation of the Constitution. Brian also runs a Second Amendment committee in New York’s capitol region.

Brian Belz
Brian.Belz@SecondAmendmentMarch.com

Thank you Ed, Terri, Steve, Chris and Brian!

Ohio State March Date Announced

Attention, Ohioans!
Mark your calendars!  The Ohio State March for Second Amendment March will take place on April 10, 2010.
Contact Dan White at dwhite@OhioCCW.org if you are able to help with this event.
More details will be published as they become available.

Upcoming Town Hall Meetings

Please be sure to regularly check our map on our homepage at www.SecondAmendmentMarch.com for Town Hall Meeting dates and locations.  New meetings are being added regularly.
MICHIGAN

What: Town Hall Meeting for the Second Amendment with Skip Coryell, founder of the Second Amendment March

When: Wednesday, August 5th, 2009 from 7:30pm to 8:30pm


Where: WWCCA Clubhouse, 6700 Napier Road, Plymouth, MI 48170


Who: OPEN to all WWCCA membership, the general public and all media
—————————————————————————————–
Michigan Second Amendment March Town Hall Meeting
Where To Meet: River Woods Park
Address: 202 N. Squirrel Road  Auburn Hills, Michigan
When: Sunday, August 9, 2009
Time: 12:00 Noon
Sponsored by Michigan Open Carry

MISSOURI
“Patriots in the Park” Town Hall Meeting
August 15th,
10Am to 2PM

Sass Park, Springfield, MO

Contact info: Matt Canovi — matt@mattcanovi.com

Second Amendment March on Twitter

Second Amendment March is now on Twitter!  Twitter is a free service that allows people to stay connected via short messages, called “tweets”.  Second Amendment March is utilizing this tool to provide updates and news to our supporters.
You can follow us at: http://twitter.com/2AMarch

Second Amendment March Store

Did you know that we offer Second Amendment March merchandise such as t-shirts, hats, pins, bumper stickers and more at http://store.secondamendmentmarch.com?
When you purchase items from the store, you can be assured that 100% of the money earned by Second Amendment March goes directly to supporting our second amendment rights.  The organizers of Second Amendment March are not taking any personal income from these sales — it’s strictly a fundraising effort.

How You Can Help

There are many things you can do TODAY to make a difference for future generations:

  • Join our forums
  • spread the word
  • pass out flyers
  • set up a town hall meeting in your area
  • write articles for the Second Amendment March website
  • write to your legislators
  • make a donation
  • write to the media
  • Set up a Second Amendment March fundraiser in your area
  • Share your special skills/knowledge
  • wear your Second Amendment March shirt proudly

“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds..”

–Samuel Adams

Second Amendment permits…

July 25, 2009

I have posted several times about unalienable rights, and why in the world any permit or license should be needed. But, such is life these days in our not so United States…

Second Amendment Reciprocity?

“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.” –Alexander Hamilton

As of this writing, Barack Hussein Obama’s “fundamental transformation of the United States of America” has obligated taxpayers for an admitted $7 trillion in current and future debt for his so-called “economic recovery” act. Heaping insult upon near-fatal injury, Congress is now considering an additional $2 trillion in proposed tax increases for BO’s CO2 folly, over $1 trillion for his nationalized healthcare experiment and untold trillions for another round of “economic recovery” programs. Furthermore, TARP Inspector General Neil Barofsky announced this week that total Federal exposure for all TARP “spending” had been leveraged to $23.7 trillion, equal to approximately one and one half times GDP.

All of this tax obligation comes amid the worst economic decline in decades, and is sure to test the limits of “Trickle-Up Poverty.”

Of course, none of the aforementioned Obama initiatives, or the collection and redistribution of wealth to fund them, is authorized by our Constitution (unless of course you subscribe to the so-called “Living Constitution” as amended by judicial diktat).

Therefore, if these schemes are not authorized by our Constitution, then we have an outlaw government, and if we have an outlaw government, then by what authority does that government assess and collect taxes?

That question will be the subject of an upcoming essay, but I raise it here in order to highlight an expenditure that our Constitution does authorize Congress to enact — defense appropriations.

The National Defense Authorization Act for 2010 (H.R. 2647) passed the House by a vote of 389 Ayes, 22 Nays (2 Republican) and 22 Present/Not Voting. It contained 69 amendments, mostly related to defense expenditures.

The Senate version of the NDAA (S.1390) with its 216 amendments is now being debated.

One of those amendments, a liberal effort to expand so-called “hate crimes” legislation, resulted in heated discourse on the Senate floor, including this scolding by John McCain (R-AZ) toward Harry Reid (D-NV): “The majority leader has made it clear that their highest priority … is a hate crimes bill that has nothing to do whatsoever with defending this nation. While we have young Americans fighting and dying in two wars, we’re going to take up the hate crimes bill because the majority leader thinks that’s more important … than legislation concerning the defense of this nation.”

Indeed, McCain has this one exactly right.

However, I draw your attention to another amendment, this one added by Sen. John Thune (R-SD), authorizing interstate reciprocity of concealed-carry permit holders cross state lines with their weapons. Thune’s amendment was stripped from the legislation even after mustering 58 votes for and 39 votes against.

Yes, that is a strong majority in favor, but still two votes short of the 60-vote threshold needed to block a promised filibuster by Chuck Schumer (D-NY). (In today’s milquetoast Senate, just the threat of a filibuster is treated as an actual filibuster.)

Deplorably, two Republican senators voted against Thune’s measure: Richard Lugar of Indiana and George Voinovich of neighboring Ohio.

For the record, I am not suggesting this measure would have passed had Lugar and Voinovich changed their votes — the Democrats were not going to let this one through. These votes always come down to who cut the best backroom wink-and-nod deals on some other piece of legislation in return for a aye or nay on this one. But I do wonder what Lugar and Voinovich got in return…

Schumer protested, “This amendment is a bridge too far, and could endanger the safety of millions of Americans. Each state has carefully crafted its concealed-carry laws in the way that makes the most sense to protect its citizens. Clearly, large, urban areas merit a different standard than rural areas. To gut the ability of local police and sheriffs to determine who should be able to carry a concealed weapon makes no sense. It could reverse the dramatic success we’ve had in reducing crime in most all parts of America. Whether you are pro-gun or pro-gun control, this measure deserves to be defeated. We will do everything we can to stop this poisonous amendment from being enacted.”

There was a concerted effort by the Left to paint Thune’s reciprocity amendment as having nothing to do with national defense — a tit-for-tat in response to McCain’s complaint about Reid’s “hate crimes” amendment.

However, I subscribe to the notion that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” That would be directly from the Second Amendment in our Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

Sidebar: For those who don’t know enough about American history to comprehend that “a well regulated Militia” refers to “the People,” stop reading this essay and take Civics 101 at any accredited institution. Oh, wait, they don’t teach Civics 101 any longer, which not only perpetuates but, in fact, institutionalizes ignorance of our Constitution.

The Second Amendment’s assurance of the right, nay, the responsibility to own and carry firearms, with the attendant proscription against government infringement of that right, is our most essential reassurance of self defense, national defense and defense of our Constitution from “enemies, domestic and abroad.”

Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the Supreme Court by James Madison (our Constitution’s principal author), wrote in his “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” (1833), “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

On that note, let’s take a closer look at Schumer’s complaint in an effort to discern what the Second Amendment really provides.

“Each state,” says Schumer, “has carefully crafted its concealed-carry laws in the way that makes the most sense to protect its citizens. Clearly, large, urban areas merit a different standard than rural areas.”

Schumer is asserting that the Second Amendment prohibits only federal government infringement of the right to keep and bear arms while that prohibition is not incorporated to prohibit state governments from infringing on the same right.

So, would Schumer likewise argue that states have authority to regulate First Amendment rights of religious freedom, or freedom of speech, or of the press? Of course not.

Ironically, the First Amendment notes, “Congress [emphasis added] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (Our Founders chose their words with great deliberation.)

Though the First Amendment is clearly a proscription on congressional legislation, not state legislation, the Second Amendment contains no such language and declares that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

However, the Left has errantly incorporated proscriptions of the First Amendment upon the states (while completely redefining “speech” to include even the most grotesque forms of expression but restricting political speech,) while arguing that the Second Amendment is a prohibition only upon the federal government.

Sidebar: When an über-leftist attempts to make an argument for federalism, beware. Though the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights defines federalism — “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” — this does not suggest that the previous amendments apply only to the federal government.

In order to consider whether there is a constitutional basis for Thune’s reciprocity amendment in the first place, we must first discern our Founders’ original intent.

The Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791 after great disagreement on whether the enumeration of such rights was even required. Alexander Hamilton aptly summed up the basis for this disagreement in Federalist No. 84: “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. … For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”

Indeed, read in context, the Bill of Rights is an affirmation of innate individual rights, of Natural Rights as noted by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence: “[All men] are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Bill of Rights, then, is a clear delineation of constraints upon the central government in regard to infringement of those rights.

Further, it is ludicrous to argue that the enumeration of those rights was a prohibition on only the federal government since, in the words of Hamilton (and echoed in the writings of many other Founders), “Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”

These rights were enumerated, according to those who favored inclusion, in order to explicitly recount the rights of “the people,” as noted in the Bill of Rights Preamble (yes, it has one): “The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added…”

In other words, our Founders argued that they enumerated both “declaratory and restrictive clauses” in order to “prevent misconstruction or abuse of [central government] powers” that would infringe on the inherent rights of the people.

More than a century after the Bill of Rights was adopted, the Supreme Court (of Jefferson’s “Despotic Branch”) began incorporating the provisions in the Bill of Rights as applicable to the states. This, in and of itself, implied that somehow the inalienable rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights might not already extend to all people in all jurisdictions.

The High Court construed the 14th Amendment’s Section 1 as support for incorporation: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

It is notable that the 14th Amendment makes direct reference to the Bill of Rights’ Fifth Amendment prohibition against depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property.”

In the mid-20th century, the Supreme Court increasingly used the 14th Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause to make portions of the Bill of Rights binding upon the states. The consequence of this interpretation was and remains that the inalienable rights enumerated by our Founders are now awarded at the discretion of the judiciary, not endowed by our Creator.

However, given the fact that our Founders’ intent with the Bill of Rights was to enumerate certain declaratory and restrictive clauses to ensure the Declaration’s “unalienable rights” of all men, one must conclude by extension that those rights are inalienable by any government jurisdiction, irrespective of the 14th Amendment.

So, in regard to Sen. Thune’s reciprocity amendment, I ask, “Reciprocity for what?” Are we so steeped in the errant notion that our rights are a gift from government that we no longer subscribe to the plain language of our Constitution based on the inalienable rights of man? Has the temperature been turned up so slowly over the last eight decades, so incrementally, that when we finally feel the heat, it will be too late for us to jump, like frogs, out of the pot?

With our Constitution now in exile, I can understand why Sen. Thune would forward an amendment to provide interstate reciprocity for law-abiding concealed weapon permit holders.

However, the Second Amendment still enumerates my right to carry.

When senators such as Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin declare, “We’re able to breathe a sigh of relief,” in regard to the defeat of Thune’s amendment, let me suggest that you obtain a copy of our Constitution, and be prepared to educate anyone charged with enforcing the law, just what it is that they have sworn to “Support and Defend.”

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: A wake up call?

July 12, 2009

For several years I have posted on various forums, and blogs about the domestic violence law, and the abuse of that law. We were first informed of just how evil all men are, and were by Patricia Schroeder from Colorado. Men were / are Al Bundy’s at best and at worst, well, what ever could be dreamed up.

Then, as always, there have to be Supermen! They had to please, and be praised no matter the cost of dignity and honor. The two most famous have to be Frank Lautenberg, and Charles Schumer. Both men of power, and as ruthless in their search for praise and recognition as any gunfighter in a fiction movie about the “wild west.” Both men have sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Yet, Lautenberg sneaked through a law that bans people from exercising rights that are defined as unalienable for less than felonious acts, and Schumer keeps blocking the funding so that rights could be restored. That’s bad enough, but the original act of treason, by Lautenberg, was to implement ex post facto law. For those that don’t know what that means, the short version is changing the rules after the game is played.

Here’s one example of how this has played out that I have personal knowledge of. Around 1957, at Von’s Market in Oceanside California, my stepfather and mother got into an argument. No hitting or anything, just some pretty loud yelling about whether they were going to buy Olympia beer, or Lucky Lager… A policeman happened to be in the store, and cited them both for disturbing the peace. Not really a big deal? Well, they both paid a ten dollar fine, and? Other than the Marine Corps dishing out a punitive tour at Adak, Alaska, all was well. Or so we thought…

Comes the year 2002, and mom wanted to go bird shooting with the grand-kids and some friends. She goes to the local store, and buys a shotgun, a regular old used Remington 870. But? The sale gets blocked. Based upon domestic violence (that wasn’t) from 1957! Years before the law was enacted! That friends, is how the domestic violence ban works. It is immoral, and goes beyond the Constitution all the way back to the Magna Carta, and The Rights of Englishmen. Remember those? Those little things that led to the “shot that was heard around the world?”

Now folks, I’m just a dumb old retired Paramedic but even I was able to see just how these laws were applied in a sexist manner. Not to mention in an un-Constitutional manner on a day to day basis. Now it seems that after all these years a few other folks have figured out what I have been talking my head off about for years.

$4 billion abuse industry rooted in deceptions and lies

By Carey Roberts
web posted July 6, 2009

Erin Pizzey is a genial woman with snow-white hair, cherubic cheeks, and an easy smile. It wasn’t always that way. The daughter of an English diplomat, she founded the world’s first shelter for battered women in 1971. To her surprise, she discovered that most of the women in her shelter were as violent as the men they had left.

When Pizzey wrote a book revealing this sordid truth, she encountered a firestorm of protest. “Abusive telephone calls to my home, death threats, and bomb scares, became a way of living for me and for my family. Finally, the bomb squad asked me to have all my mail delivered to their head quarters,” she would later reveal.

According a recent report, the domestic violence industry continues to engage in information control tactics, spewing a dizzying series of half-truths, white lies, and outright  prevarications. The report, “Fifty Domestic Violence Myths,” is published by RADAR, Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting: http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-50-DV-Myths.pdf

How often have you heard the mantra-like claim, “domestic violence is all about power and control”? That’s code for the feminist dogma that domestic violence is rooted in men’s insatiable need to dominate and oppress the women in their lives.

And the obvious solution to partner abuse? Eliminate the patriarchy!

I know it all sounds far-fetched, but that’s what the gender ideologues who get their funding from the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) believe. And no surprise these programs have been an abject failure. As Dr. Angela Parmley of the Department of Justice once admitted, “We have no evidence to date that VAWA has led to a decrease in the overall levels of violence against women.”

Once you blame the whole problem of partner abuse on patriarchal dominance, the women who proudly call themselves the “VAWA Mafia” find themselves compelled to dress up the fable with a series of corollary myths.

Here are some examples: When a woman attacks her boyfriend, claim she was only acting in self-defense. Shrug off her assault with the “He had it coming” line. Aver her short stature prevents her from ever hurting her man. Or assert she grew up in an abusive household, as if that somehow lets her off the hook.

Above all, the ideologues will never admit that partner violence is more common among lesbians than heterosexual couples. Just consider the case of Jessica Kalish, the 56-year-old Florida woman who was stabbed 222 times last October with a Phillips screwdriver wielded by ex-girlfriend Carol Anne Burger. But no one dared call it “domestic violence.”

Once you begin to play tricks with the truth, you need to invent ever grander prevarications.  So sit back and get ready for a good chuckle, because there’s not a shred of truth to any of these claims regularly put forth by the domestic abuse industry:

1. A marriage license is a hitting license. (Truth is, an intact marriage is the safest place for men and women alike.)

2. Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women. (The leading causes of female injury are unintentional falls, motor vehicle accidents, and over-exertion. Domestic violence is not even on the list.)

3. The March of Dimes reports that battering is the leading cause of birth defects. (The March of Dimes has never done such a study.)

4. Women never make false allegations of domestic violence. (That’s the biggest whopper  of all.)

5. Super Bowl Sunday is the biggest day of the year for violence against women. (Will the abuse industry never tire of its demagoguery?)

These are just five of the 50 domestic violence myths documented in the RADAR report.  As former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once deadpanned, “You’re entitled to your own opinions; you’re not entitled to your own facts.” Hopefully the $4 billion partner abuse industry will begin to pay attention. ESR

Carey Roberts is a Staff Writer for The New Media Alliance. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

SOURCE

Firearms Legislation In The 111th Congress

July 12, 2009

Seems like there is an awful lot of misinformation going around the Internet lately concerning new gun laws that are, or are not on the table. This is a synopsis as of today from Gun Owners of America.

Firearms Legislation In The 111th Congress

Gun Owners of America Analysis of Current Gun Bills


House:H.R. 17 (Bartlett): This bill would reaffirm the right to use firearms for self-defense and for defense of one’s home and family.

H.R. 45 (Rush):  This bill would require a license for handguns and semiautomatics, including those currently possessed.  The applicant must be thumbprinted and sign a certification that, effectively, the firearm will not be kept in a place where it would be available for the defense of the gun owner’s family.  The applicant must also make available ALL of his psychiatric records, pass an exam, and pay a fee of up to $25.  The license may be renewed after five years and may be revoked.  Private sales would be outlawed, and reports to the attorney general of all transactions would be required, even when, as the bill allows, the AG determines that a state licensing system is sufficiently draconian to substitute for the federal license.  With virtually no exceptions, ALL firearms transactions (involving semiautos, handguns, long guns, etc.) would be subject to a Brady check.  In addition, the bill would make it unlawful in nearly all cases to keep any loaded firearm for self-defense.  A variety of “crimes by omission” (such as failure to report certain things) would be created.  Criminal penalties of up to ten years and almost unlimited regulatory and inspection authority would be established.

H.R. 197 (Stearns):  This bill would establish national standards for concealed carry reciprocity, but would not protect residents of pro-gun states like Vermont and Alaska which do not require paper permits.

H.R. 256 (Jackson-Lee):  This bill would, among other things, impose a ten-year prison sentence (a life sentence if death or kidnapping results) for using a firearm to cause bodily injury on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.

H.R. 257 (Jackson Lee):  This bill would take the already Byzantine restrictions on teaching your kids the responsible use of firearms and extend them from handguns to semi-autos; increase the age of applicability from 18 to 21; and increase potential penalties to up to 10 years in prison.

In addition, the bill prohibits unaccompanied minors from gun shows, and subjects parents to up to 3 years in prison for keeping an unloaded gun (with ammunition in the vicinity) if a jury finds that they disregarded a risk, that a kid (including a burglar) would get a hold of the gun and the unauthorized user causes injury.  This provision effectively eliminates having guns available for self defense.

H.R. 265 (Jackson-Lee):  This bill is intended to remove the disparity between sentencing for crack cocaine (perceived as a drug used more frequently by blacks) and powder cocaine (perceived as a drug used more frequently by whites).  The bill is, among other things, intended to relieve sentencing on the basis of the fact that crack cocaine was the drug involved, but increase sentencing on the basis of the fact that a weapon was “brandished.”

H.R. 442 (Rehberg):  This bill would provide amnesty for a veteran who acquired a “souvenir” (such as a machine gun) while serving overseas, so long as it is registered during a 90-day grace period.

H.R. 455 (Welch):  This bill would add the Missiquoi and Trout Rivers in Vermont to the Wild and Scenic Rivers system, and commission a study on, among other things, the possession of weapons on lands adjacent to the area.

H.R. 495 (Rodriguez, Teague, Engel, Reyes): This bill would authorize $15,000,000 for two years to the BATFE for the purpose of enhancing its project to thwart the transportation of firearms across the Mexican border.

H.R. 510 (Kind et al.):  This bill would provide that the manufacturer’s excise tax on recreational equipment be paid quarterly.

H.R. 623 (Reyes):  This bill would suspend minimum sentencing requirements in the case of a person who was authorized to carry a firearm in connection with his employment and committed the crime during and in relation to his employment.  (See, also, H.R. 834 and H.R. 866.)

H.R. 642 (Flake):  This bill would provide that, except for overriding reasons such as national security or safety, public lands should be open to recreational shooting.  It would generally require that withdrawal of lands from recreational shooting be offset, and would require congressional committees to be notified in writing before such a withdrawal.

H.R. 673 (Filner, McHugh):  This bill would make changes in the federal employee retirement system with respect to certain law enforcement personnel.

H.R. 675 (Filner):  This bill would provide police, criminal investigators, and game law enforcement personnel in the Department of Defense with the authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms.

H.R. 808:  This bill would create a Department of Peace, which would be tasked with, among other things, analyzing policies with respect to “tools of violence, including handguns.”

H.R. 834 (Poe):  This bill would suspend minimum sentencing requirements in the case of a person who was authorized to carry a firearm in connection with his employment and committed the crime during and in relation to his employment.  (See, also, H.R. 623 and H.R. 866.)

H.R. 866 (Brady et al.):  This bill would suspend minimum sentencing requirements in the case of a person who was authorized to carry a firearm in connection with his employment and committed the crime during and in relation to his employment.  (See, also, H.R. 623 and H.R. 834.)

H.R. 1022 (Schiff and Bono Mack):  This is the 111th Congress’ incarnation of the “gang bill.”  It would, among other things, define a “criminal street gang” to include an informal group of five or more people (such as a family or business), each of whom has committed one or more “gang crimes” (such driving by a school with a gun in the car under 18 U.S.C. 922(q)), including a violent felony (such as defending your family against a criminal under circumstances in which a prosecutor feels you should have retreated).

H.R. 1048 (Sires, Hare, Wilson, Frank, Meek):  This bill would prohibit the HUD secretary from accepting any fees for enforcing any provision of a dwelling lease agreement that requires registration of firearms or prohibits their possession for sport or self-defense.

H.R. 1074 (Scalise): This bill would allow for the interstate sale of firearms, provided that the laws of the State in which the transfer is conducted and the State of residence of the transferee are complied with, in addition to federal law.

H.R. 1448 (Rodriguez et al.):  Like H.R. 495, this bill would authorize $15,000,000 a year to send BATF agents to the Mexican border and to Mexico in connection with “Project Gunrunner.”  In addition, it would provide $9,500,000 a year to do things like trace firearms recovered in Mexico, presumably for the purpose of building a case for anti-gun legislation in the U.S.  It also contains $150,000,000 a year for other border security operations and $15,000,000 for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

H.R. 1620 (Boozman):  This “Vermont-friendly” bill would authorize a person who can lawfully carry concealed in his state of residence — or has a concealed carry permit from any state — to carry a concealed firearm in all states.  Unlike some reciprocity bills, it allows non-permit states like Vermont to benefit from its provisions and does not set “national standards” for carrying firearms.

H.R. 1684 (Hastings):  This bill would codify the Bush Administration’s regulations concerning guns in National Parks.

H.R. 1913 (Conyers, Frank): This is the controversial House-passed Hate Crimes bill.  It would impose a 10-year prison sentence for a simple “attempt” to cause bodily injury if a firearm was involved.

H.R. 2159 (King of New York, Rangel, McCarthy, et al.): This bill would allow Eric Holder to declare any person a “prohibited person” (revoke licenses of, etc.) if he “suspects” that individual of aiding terrorism. Given recent disclosures that the government regards pro-lifers, pro-gun advocates, veterans, and other conservatives as potential terrorists, this has to be regarded with some alarm. This is particularly true because Holder is specifically authorized by the bill to withhold information concerning the basis for putting conservatives on his “enemies list.”

H.R. 2296 (King, Space): This is a reincarnation of a bill which contains a hodge-podge of relatively minor good things — and one really bad thing which was used to secure the cosponsorship of the Judiciary Committee Chairman on the Senate version of the bill.  The bad thing is that the bill would allow BATFE to impose, for the first time, civil penalties on federal firearms licensees. Civil penalties could easily put a small licensee out of business, but can be imposed without the burden of proof, disclosure requirements, and other protections accorded criminal defendants. And, although proponents argue that civil penalties will allow BATFE to impose penalties short of license revocation, there is no requirement that license revocations be reduced commensurately. While GOA has pushed other provisions in the bill tightening state-of-mind requirements and gun definitions, these are not enough to offset giving the BATFE a tool which has served as the central engine for expanding the power and jurisdiction of other agencies (like the SEC).

H.R. 2324 (Castle, McCarthy, et al.):  This bill is a reincarnation of the year-after-year effort to effectively ban gun shows by allowing them to be regulated and inspected to an unlimited extent.  In addition, any gun show sponsor would be subject to up to two years in prison if he failed to notify every single attendee of his responsibilities under the Brady Law.

H.R. 2401 (McCarthy): This bill is a reincarnation of legislation to make “prohibited persons” of everyone on an administration “terrorist watch list.”  Suffice it to say that:

  • there are virtually no guidelines to who can or can’t be placed on one of these lists, and they have prohibited boarding by people like Ted Kennedy;
  • it is impossible to find out why you are on the list and very difficult to get your name off.

Senate:

S. 160:  This is the Senate-passed bill to grant a voting representative for the District of Columbia in the House.  As a result of an amendment added on the Senate floor by Senator John Ensign, it would repeal the gun registration and microstamping provisions of D.C. law, and would bar the District from passing new anti-gun statutes.

S. 296 (Chambliss, Cornyn, Coburn, Isakson):  This bill would replace the federal income tax with a national sales tax.  Although the language is a little muddy, it appears that the 1934 National Firearms Act is retained.

S. 325 (Cochran):  The bill would allow pest control pyrotechnics to be exempted from the explosives provisions of Title 18.

S. 371 (Thune, Vitter):  This “Vermont-friendly” bill would authorize a person who can lawfully carry concealed in his state of residence — or has a concealed carry permit from any state — to carry a concealed firearm in all states.  Unlike some reciprocity bills, it allows non-permit states like Vermont to benefit from its provisions and does not set “national standards” for carrying firearms.

S. 556 (Vitter):  Current law allows long guns to be purchased in a face-to-face transaction with a gun dealer in a state outside the purchaser’s state of residence.  This bill:

* extends that law to all firearms;

* allows the gun to be purchased at a gun show; and

* rescinds provisions that allow the state of residence to reach into another state and prohibit a transaction which has nothing to do with its jurisdiction.

S. 632 (Baucus et al.):  This bill would provide that the manufacturer’s excise tax on recreational equipment be paid quarterly.

S. 669 (Burr):  This bill would protect veterans by first requiring a finding by a judge or magistrate that an individual is mentally incompetent before his guns are taken away under laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs.  This would replace the current method, which has resulted in the disarmament of more than 100,000 veterans by government psychiatrists, who have issued opinions claiming that PTSD symptoms require a returning veteran to get help to manage his financial affairs.

S. 816 (Crapo):  This bill would codify the Bush Administration’s regulations concerning guns in National Parks.

S. 845 (Thune, Vitter):  This is the GOA-supported “Vermont-friendly” concealed carry reciprocity bill.

S. 941 (Crapo, Leahy): This is the Senate counterpart to H.R. 2296 and is a reincarnation of a bill which contains a hodge-podge of relatively minor good things — and one really bad thing which was used to secure the cosponsorship of Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy.  The bad thing is that the bill would allow BATFE to impose, for the first time, civil penalties on federal firearms licensees. Civil penalties could easily put a small licensee out of business, but can be imposed without the burden of proof, disclosure requirements, and other protections accorded criminal defendants. And, although proponents argue that civil penalties will allow BATFE to impose penalties short of license revocation, there is no requirement that license revocations be reduced commensurately — and it’s pretty clear (and GOA has in fact been told) that this anti-gun provision was added as an inducement for the support of Leahy and Obama. And, while GOA has pushed other provisions in the bill tightening state-of-mind requirements and gun definitions, these are not enough to offset giving the BATFE a tool which has served as the central engine for expanding the power and jurisdiction of other agencies (like the SEC).

S. 1317 (Lautenberg): This bill would allow the Attorney General to deny the purchase of a firearm pursuant to an Instantcheck (or a permit which would allow a person to by-pass the Instantcheck) if he “suspect[s]” that the person has been engaged in conduct “related to terrorism” and the Attorney General has a “reasonable belief” that the firearm might be used in connection with terrorism. The Attorney General is specifically permitted to withhold any information concerning his “reasonable belief.” Take into consideration, in evaluating the application of this bill, that DHS in 2009 circulated an advisory attempting to link mainline Second Amendment and pro-life groups to “terrorism” — and a number of recent newspaper commentaries have argued that groups like GOA and the NRA are, in some way, responsible for criminal acts recently committed in Pittsburgh and Wichita.

SOURCE

A leash of sorts for thugs?

July 11, 2009

Abuse by one particular government agency is legend. It would appear that finally some real reform might come to the folks that brought you the Ruby Ridge entrapment fiasco, and the American Holocaust known as Waco. During the Clinton era, explosives were added to the bureau’s name in an effort to legitimatize the mission that was at that time under the administration of the Internal Revenue Service. Explosives? As a tax issue?  For some reason arson was also added to the sphere. While those things should come under the wing of the F.B.I. The changes made little if any difference in the day to day practice of Agents. It should be remembered that every single one of the people that work at B.A.T.F.E. have sworn to uphold the Constitution, and that these very same people do their very best to deny people of their unalienable rights. That friends, is treason, defined.

Don’t get me wrong, not all agents are evil people. I have actually known one that was a decent person. One…

SPACE’S ATF REFORM LEGISLATION GAINS SUPPORT OF 100 DEFENDERS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

07/09/09

– Cosponsor List Crosses 100 in This Congress –

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Hailing a major milestone in the effort to protect law-abiding gun dealers from excessive and overzealous actions on the part of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE), Congressman Zack Space (OH-18) today announced that his BATFE reform legislation has gained the support of over 100 Members of Congress. While the size of a cosponsorship list does not guarantee a vote on the bill, gaining 100 bipartisan cosponsors shows widespread support and momentum.

“My colleagues are waking up to the assault on the Second Amendment being perpetrated by a culture within the ATF that rewards agents for denying gun licenses,” Space said. “I applaud their willingness to stand up to protect law-abiding citizens from overzealous federal agents.”

“Every day that goes by without action on this issue is another day of lost liberty. ATF reform cannot wait. Crossing this milestone will only redouble my efforts to show House leadership that we are serious about this bill,” Space continued.

The bipartisan BATFE Reform and Firearms Modernization Act of 2009, which Space introduced with Rep. Steve King (IA-05), would replace the all-or-nothing rules for punishment with a graduated system, remove promotion guidelines that reward agents for the quantity of arrests and citations, and it would require the BATFE to establish intent behind minor violations. BATFE regulations now are so restrictive that if a person writes “y” instead of “yes” on a gun purchase form, the application is frequently rejected.

This legislation would:
  • Create a system to provide more flexibility in punishing those who are found to have violated gun sales laws.
  • Establish a solid legal requirement for determining the willful violation of the law.
  • Create specific sentencing guidelines for dangerous felons convicted of a gun offense.
  • Set limitations on the availability of electronic gun owner information to protect the privacy of law-abiding citizens.
  • Allow security companies and ammunition manufacturers to purchase machine guns for product testing and international security personnel training.
  • Ease the restriction on the importation of replacement parts for semiautomatic rifles.
  • Direct that a suspension or fine be vacated if a court determines a licensee did not willfully violate the law with attorney’s fees awarded to a cleared defendant.
  • Direct that the number of warnings, amount of fines, or suspensions or revocations shall not be a factor in firing, promoting, or transferring agents.

Although not identical, this legislation is similar to a bill Congressmen Space and Steve King (IA-05) introduced during the 110th Congress.

Congressman Space has represented Ohio’s 18th Congressional District since 2007. He is working to restore integrity to the office and create the conditions to bring new industry and jobs to Ohio.

SOURCE

Profiles of Valor: U.S. Army Pfc. Moss

July 10, 2009

Profiles of Valor: U.S. Army Pfc. Moss

Moss with family

Pfc. Channing Moss of the United States Army was serving in Afghanistan in March 2006 when disaster struck. His convoy was attacked by Taliban fighters with small arms and rocket propelled grenades. Moss, manning an MK 19 machine gun in the turret of his Humvee, was struck by an RPG — and survived. Though Moss was impaled through the abdomen with live ordnance, his comrades didn’t leave him to die. Army regulations dictate that MEDEVAC choppers should never carry a wounded soldier with a live round in him, yet the flight crew did just that. “[A]t the time, I really didn’t think about it,” said flight medic Sgt. John Collier, then a specialist. “I knew [the RPG] was there but I thought, if we didn’t do it, if we didn’t get him out of there, he was going to die.” Protocol also dictates that soldiers in Moss’s condition be placed in a sandbagged bunker and considered “expectant” — expected to die. But Maj. John Oh, 759th Forward Surgical Team general surgeon and a naturalized Korean immigrant, performed the life-saving surgery while wearing body armor and a helmet and assisted by a member of the explosive ordnance disposal team and other brave volunteers.

The Military Times has more on this incredible story here and a moving video here (warning: graphic content).

Three months after surviving the attack, Moss witnessed the birth of his second daughter, Ariana. That would not have been possible without the heroic efforts of Maj. Oh, Sgt. Collier and the crew of the 159th Medical Company. “They saved my life,” said Moss. “I hope God watches over them if they get deployed.” Indeed.

SOURCE: Patriot Post

My comment: Every single person involved in this deserves a “Brass Balls” award; signed, Patrick Sperry

N.R.E.M.T.-Paramedic retired.

Aztlan, Reconquista, and La Raza

July 5, 2009

Related to the previous post is this piece stolen from Tracy at No Compromise. Read it, and judge for yourself the degree of threat.

Warning, the language used is adult only content.

L.A. LATINOS CELEBRATE THE FARCE OF JULY

Posted on July 4th, 2009 nocompromise 1 comment

Goodbye, Gringo America

By Paul Williams

obamatacosombrerofestival

It’s payback time for white America.

“America’s Palestinians” are on the march, chanting “Ahora es la tiempo por audacia”!

Thousands of Latinos are gathering this Independence Day to celebrate the Farce of July.

This annual all-day concert and street fair is held on Cesar Chavez Avenue in East Los Angeles – – the heart of the barrio.

The event is sponsored by the Aztlan Underground to uphold the claim that the Southwest portion of the United States had been stolen from Mexicans and Mexican Americans by Yankee colonialists under the leadership of U.S. President James K. Polk.

Members of the Aztlan Movement and La Raza (of which Supreme Council nominee Sotomayor is a national director) seek to annex California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and southern Colorado into a new nation: Republica del Norte, “the Republic of the North.”

farce

Last year’s event poster


Sounds like a far-fetched idea save for the fact that the 56% of Mexicans and Mexican Americans, according to a Zogby poll, favor the reconquista.

The creation of a “Hispanic Homeland,” Charles Truxillo, professor, University of New Mexico, maintains, is “an inevitability” that should be brought into being “by any means necessary.”

But the “reconquista” won’t end with territorial occupation and secession. The final plan for the La Raza movement includes the ethnic cleansing of Americans of European, African, and Asian descent out of “Aztlan.”

Miguel Perez, a La Raza spokesman at Cal State-Northridge, says, “The ultimate ideology is the liberation of Aztlan. Communism would be closest [to it]. Once Aztlan is established, ethnic cleansing would commence: Non-Chicanos would have to be expelled — opposition groups would be quashed because you have to keep power.”

And so, our new Your browser may not support display of this image. Supreme Court appointee and self-professed advocate of La Raza approves of the reformation of the United States, the creation of a separate Chicano country, and widespread ethnic cleansing. Other La Raza supporters who have appeared at Aztlan gatherings include George W. Bush, John (Juan) McCain, and Barack barrio-loving Obama.

The plans of La Raza and the Aztlan Movement may not raise conservative eyebrows, let alone Christian opposition to Sotomayor’s ascendancy to the Your browser may not support display of this image. Supreme Court, save for the fact that La Raza and other Latino activist groups have expressed widespread anti-Jewish sentiments and support for radical Islam.

This finding is supported by articles in “The Voice of Aztlan” with such lurid titles as “That Shitty Little Country Israel,” “Pat Tillman Got What Was coming to Him,” and “Osama bin Laden: the ‘Pancho Villa’ of Islam.”

fu-gringo-la

If you cannot attend, the Farce of July, it’s high time for you to encounter the Aztlan Underground and to savor the lyrics of their smash hit – “Decolonize:”


AUG’s on the scene with a vengeance
No man or law can end this
Power, in a true sense of the word
Now it’s time that my people be heard
Some feel this oppression no longer exists
Well here’s something they missed
Self D means self determination
To put a stop to colonization
We begin with a historical analysis
To illustrate a Mexican paralysis
See Mexico’s been occupied since 1848
Which left the mexicano at a constant 2nd rate
Now learn the word called colonization
Stranger in your own land under exploitation
This is the state of the indigena today

Under the oppression of the settlers way [x2]

WE DIDN’T CROSS THE BORDERS, THE BORDERS CROSSED US! [x3]


YET THE SETTLER NATION LIVES IN DISGUST!


The American dream only for some
Play the role and forget where you came from
Now check it, this is their reality
And just because its wasp holds no validity
WASP-White Anglo Saxon Protestant
The frame of mind that keeps our oppression constant
You try to be white and its very respectable
But be Xicano and its highly unacceptable
Then we’re termed hispanic as if we were from Spain
Trying to insert us in the American game
And we’re called wetbacks like we’ve never been here
When our existence on this continent is thousands of years


This is the state of the indigena today

Under the oppression of the settlers way [x2]

WE DIDN’T CROSS THE BORDERS, THE BORDERS CROSSED US [x3]


YET THE SETTLER NATION LIVES IN DISGUST repeat


To the earth, to the air, to the fire, and to the water….
The eagle and condor have met
We must realize
Our connection to this land
Till a Hopi and a Mexica can really understand
That invaders divided indigenous people
Under english, french, or spanish it make us all feeble
Unable to recognize each other
From Xicano to Lakota all sisters and brothers
In the spirit of Pontiac, all the red keepers of the earth mother

From the top of Alaska to the tip of South America
Abya Yala, Anahuak, Turtle Island
506 years of indigenous resistance
The prophecies are coming true
The redemption of the red people has come!
The 6th sun now arises
The 7th fire has arrived
Cihuatl is reclaiming


We have returned to Aztlan
We have returned to Aztlan!!!!


WE DIDN’T CROSS THE BORDERS, THE BORDERS CROSSED US [x3]


YET THE SETTLER NATION LIVES IN DISGUST!!


GET THE FUCK OUT, GET THE FUCK OUT, GET THE FUCK , FUCK, FUCK OUT


GET THE FUCK OUT


WASICHU EATER OF THE FAT WASTER OF EARTH MOTHER


AND PEOPLE


COLONIZER OF AZTLAN AND THE WORLD


GET THE FUCK OUT!!!!


Sphere: Related Content

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

California Politics, it’s not just the budget

July 4, 2009

More than thirty years ago I left my birth state because things like no work, huge taxes, and what I considered to be corruption in favor of special interest groups was destroying what once was a very decent place to live, and raise a family.

Those special interest groups played the race card, the union card, and the gender card most often, but there were other things as well. So now, what was once the sixth largest economy in the entire world (if memory serves me correctly) is broke financially. Not to mention morally, and no, I’m not talking about bikini clad women and Hollywood. I’m talking about a refusal to honor what had been one of the strongest individual rights state constitutions in the union. Look at the flag of California, it says California Republic. That concept has been denigrated by social “progressives” and the politically correct. What has happened to California will be coming to your state soon if that sort of thing is allowed to continue. This is something for any and all to be thinking about today, Independence Day 2009.

My good bloging buddy BZ unloads about all this:

Ever since I’ve lived here (23years) I’ve noticed a couple things that I always thought would ruin a great state.
1. An over abundance of Mexican Nationals. (OK I’ll wait for the gasp and the cries of Racist……Done yet?.. Ok lets move on)

The reason I say that is, when you get such a culture switch as California has endured over the past 30 years, you end up with an area that resembles what the immigrants left. Take a look at LA. Mayor Antonio Villiaragosa is as corrupt as any politician in Mexico. Look at the education system, the health care system of California is a clear cut case of a good idea entrapped by corruption. in 1986 Reagan granted Amnesty to the Illegal Immigrants that were here already with a promise to curb the flood of future illegals. That didn’t happen, so now we have the “Original Illegals” that have MULTIPLIED and destroyed what little infrastructure was left, including Education, and Health-Care. On top of that we have the next generation of illegal’s waiting for Obama to grant Amnesty,  so they can follow in the foot steps of their forefathers….Now; for the first time in my life I am very worried for our nation. I honestly believe we are headed down the road to ruin.

When the IOU’s quit being honored, possibly as soon as July 11th, there will be an explosion in California that will have consequences from coast to coast. Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of nutjobs to go around in this state, and they are ALL NOT MEXICAN, but if you look at a few undeniable stats like “Welfare recipients” and “Prison racial breakdowns” as well as education statistics. Facts are facts. Look it up. Look at the hispanic UPTICK that corresponds with the state “Downturn”. Look at who raises the biggest stink when there is mention of school performance measures… They say it’s not fair, it’s because the classes are too big, or whatever….ITS THE EXPLOSION IN MEXICAN NATIONALS that has created that “Environment”…

I am not being racist because I notice the obvious, if you are offended it’s because you are in denial of the obvious.

So you ask how do you fix it? Let me tell you how easy it is. YOU QUIT MAKING IT EASY! Americans are people that overcome hardship, Americans are people that deal with things, find sollutions and get better, Americans USED to do that. NOW in California, if you don’t speak english, we make it easy for you, we make those that don’t speak spanish listen to a bi-lingual teacher re-read an assignment in spanish for you. We have signs in spanish we have everything for you so you really have no reason to learn english… Everyone suffers for that kindness. We have made an entire generation of immigrants into drooling zombies (Better known as Democrat voters) by allowing them the ability to remain MEXICANS first, rather than TRUE Americans, that believe in GOD, Family and Country. The new generation believes in “Gang, 40’s, and Ho’s” there is no “Patriotism” other than on Cinco De Mayo for the most part. Now there is one caveat.. ALL Mexican’s do not deserve this rant, if you are a hard working family, including your kids, you speak english, you don’t fly your Mexican flag and you consider yourself AMERICAN first… This rant is not about you or anyone like you. ITs about those that have sucked the life out of California by being what they left.

(/end rant)

2. Over Regulation. You look at the resources and possibility for employers to call California home, yet why do they leave? They leave because of Cal EPA, they leave because of Cal OSHA they leave because of the taxes levied on them they leave because of the HIGH cost of employing people. Our State Government is punishing the very folks it needs. They make really cute commercials showing how wonderful it is here…BUT they leave out the real reason we have the nations highest unemployment rate. REGULATIONS. The wonderful beaches, are HOMELESS encampments for the most part the mountains are great for “Green stuff” like Hiking and skiing but try to go hunting and fishing, or try to show your kids how to live off the land and see how much red tape you have to go through. Try to get a business license for something around here and you will see real quick why business are again EXITING STAGE RIGHT>

3. Crime rates, recividism, and the lack of public outrage when laws were passed regarding personal rights. When the Anti-Gun morons in California decided to pass these “Little” laws that didn’t really affect “ME” at the time were enacted, then there was a small outrage. It was the NRA that made their voces heard in Sacramento but they had little support in the form of public outrage. We simply kept working, kept enjoying the scenery and kept looking out for “Numero uno”….NOW we can’t buy much more than a pea shooter or we can buy it but only after CONSTITUTIONALLY ILLEGAL Government intrusion. We must submit to countless privacy invasion, now they are going to stamp ammo…any outrage yet?
So Sacramento has successfully restricted INNOCENT LAW ABIDING CALIFORNIA citizens in their right to self preservation, you then make laws and judgments that give the criminals advantages in courts. Oh and lets not forget their treatment behind bars, cable tv, weight rooms and “Networking Opportunities” that make the small time criminal come out stronger, more street smart and more well connected than when he went in. And then for shits and giggles lets take a few more cops off the streets when budgets need cutting….

4. When Arnie took office I HAD HOPE! That soon faded after I realized that he had NO HELP in the state house, he tried some good things and it was HAMMERED by the libtard elites, the very powerful unions and the ever present ACLU and LA-RAZA folks. they were able to stop a lot of plans Arnie had when he first took office that MAY have allowed CALIFORNIA to remain above this HISTORY MAKING DEBT! He had good ideas that would have stopped some of the illegal immigration SUCKING at the state teet. He had business friendly ideas he touted on his campaign to oust Davis, He had tried and true REAGAN type common sense sollutions to the problem of businesses leaving. WELL that didn’t last long, the Kennedy hand up his ass was obviously very strong and it took his nuts and turned them into small grapes…(Either that or steroids) So here we are— FUCT.

So for those of you not in California, stay tuned.. this will be interesting. Trust me, IF/When the shit does hit the fan, you will know I’m knee deep in the middle of it by the body count on roads headed South East.  First SOB tries to get in my way ends up on my bumper like a deer carcas….

// <![CDATA[// AddThisIf you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Posted in California, Democrats |
Tagged With:

4 Comments »

SOURCE

First, a little bit of history

July 3, 2009

Independence Day 2009: We still hold these truths…

“Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” –Patrick Henry

As we celebrate the 233rd year of our Declaration of Independence, let us look at the common parlance associated with the polar spectrum of current political ideology (while such a review is still permitted by the state), and explore what is meant by “Left versus Right,” “Liberal versus Conservative” and “Tyranny versus Liberty”?

Tyranny v. Liberty (poster available at PatriotShop.US)

First, a little history.

On July 4th of 1776, our Founders, assembled as representatives to the Second Continental Congress, issued a declaration stating most notably: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. … That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”

In other words, our Founders affirmed that our rights, which are inherent by Natural Law as provided by our Creator, can’t be arbitrarily alienated by men like England’s King George III, who believed that the rights of men are the gifts of government.

Our Founders publicly declared their intentions to defend these rights by attaching their signatures between July 4th and August 2nd of 1776 to the Declaration. They and their fellow Patriots pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor as they set about to defend the Natural Rights of man.

At the conclusion of the American War for Independence in 1783, our Founders determined the new nation needed a more suitable alliance among the states than the Articles of Confederation. After much deliberation, they proposed the U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1787, ratified in 1788 and implemented in 1789 as subordinate guidance to our Declaration of Independence.

Since that time, generations of American Patriots have laid down their lives “to support and defend” our Constitution — and I would note here that their sacred oath says nothing about a so-called “Living Constitution” as advocated by the political left.

Given that bit of history as a backdrop, consider the lexicography of our current political ideology.

On the dark side of the spectrum would be Leftists, liberals and tyrants.

(Sidebar: One should not confuse “classical liberalism” with “contemporary liberalism.” The former refers to those, like Thomas Jefferson, who advocated individual liberty, while the latter refers to those, like Barack Hussein Obama, who advocate statism, which is the antithesis of liberty.)

Statism, as promoted by contemporary American liberals, has as its objective the establishment of a central government authorized as the arbiter of all that is “good” for “the people” — and conferring upon the State ultimate control over the most significant social manifestation of individual rights, economic enterprise.

On the left, all associations between individuals ultimately augment the power and control of the State. The final expression and inevitable terminus of such power and control, if allowed to progress unabated, is tyranny.

The word “tyranny” is derived from the Latin “tyrannus,” which translates to “illegitimate ruler.”

Liberals, then, endeavor to undermine our nation’s founding principles in order to achieve their statist objectives. However, politicians who have taken an oath to “support and defend” our Constitution, but then govern in clear defiance of that oath, are nothing more than illegitimate rulers, tyrants.

(Sidebar: Some Leftists contend that Communism and Fascism are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. Properly understood, however, both of these forms of government are on the left, because both have as a common end the establishment of an omnipotent state led by a dictator.)

Over on the “right wing” of the political spectrum, where the light of truth shines, would be “conservatives,” from the Latin verb “conservare,” meaning to preserve, protect and defend — in this case, our Constitution.

American conservatives are those who seek to conserve our nation’s First Principles, those who advocate for individual liberty, constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and the promotion of free enterprise, strong national defense and traditional American values.

Contemporary political ideology is thus defined by tyrannus and conservare occupying the Left and Right ends of the American political spectrum, defining the difference between liberals and conservatives.

Though there are many devoted protagonists at both ends of this scale, the space in between is littered with those who, though they identify with one side or the other, are not able to articulate the foundation of that identity. That is to say, they are not rooted in liberal or conservative doctrine, but motivated by contemporaneous political causes associated with the Left or Right. These individuals do not describe themselves as “liberal” or “conservative” but as Democrat or Republican. Further, they tend to elect ideologically ambivalent politicians who are most adept at cultivating special interest constituencies.

That having been said, however, there is a major difference between those on the Left and the Right, as demonstrated by our most recent national elections. Those on the Left tend to form a more unified front for the purpose of electability; they tend to embrace a “win at all costs” philosophy, while those on the right tend to spend valuable political capital drawing distinctions between and among themselves.

I would suggest that this disparity is the result of the contest between human nature and Natural Law.

The Left appeals to the most fundamental human instincts to procure comfort, sustenance and shelter, and to obtain those basic needs by the most expedient means possible. The Left promises that the State will attain those needs equally, creating a path of least resistance for that fulfillment.

On the other end of the spectrum, the Right promotes the tenets of Natural Law — individual liberty and its attendant requirements of personal responsibility and self-reliance.

Clearly, one of these approaches is far easier to sell to those who have been systematically dumbed down by government educational institutions and stripped of their individual dignity by the plethora of government welfare programs.

That easy sell notwithstanding, the threat of tyranny can eventually produce an awakening among the people and a reversal of trends toward statism. But this reversal depends on the emergence of a charismatic, moral leader who can effectively advocate for liberty. (Ronald Wilson Reagan comes to mind.)

For some nations, this awakening has come too late. The most notable examples in the last century are Russia, Germany, Italy and China, whose peoples suffered greatly under the statist tyrannies they came to embrace. In Germany and Italy, the state collapsed after its expansionist designs were forcibly contained. In Russia, the state collapsed under the weight of 70 years of economic centralization and ideological expansionism.

The Red Chinese regime, having witnessed the collapse of the USSR, has so far avoided its own demise by combining an autocratic government with components of a free enterprise economic system. (My contacts in China, including that nation’s largest real estate developers and investment fund managers, believe the Red regime will be gone within five years.)

Of course, there exists an American option for the rejection of tyranny: Revolution. And it is an essential option, because the Natural Rights of man are always at risk of contravention by tyrants. At no time in the last century has our Republic faced a greater threat from “enemies, domestic” than right now.

“Our individual salvation,” insists Barack Obama, “depends on collective salvation.” In other words, BHO’s tyranny, et al, must transcend Constitutional authority. And in accordance with his despotic ideals, Obama is now implementing “the fundamental transformation of the United States of America” that he promised his cadre of liberal voters.

It is yet to be seen whether the current trend toward statism will be reversed by the emergence of a great conservative leader, or by revolution, but if you’re betting on another Ronald Reagan, I suggest you hedge your bet.

Our Declaration’s author, Thomas Jefferson, understood the odds. He wrote, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground,” and he concluded, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

Accordingly, George Washington advised, “We should never despair, our Situation before has been unpromising and has changed for the better, so I trust, it will again. If new difficulties arise, we must only put forth new Exertions and proportion our Efforts to the exigency of the times.”

Indeed we must.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US

Lautenberg’s Axis of Evil at it again

July 3, 2009

Gun Hater Lautenberg Proposes “Extraordinary Powers” Be Given To the U.S. Attorney General To Limit Gun Sales.

Obama and the White House are looking the other way as Lautenberg seeks to ban guns from 1,000,000 US citizens on a secret FBI terrorist watch list. Obama has deliberately and repeatedly lied to America’s 90 million gun owners across the country when he insisted that he would not try to take away anyone’s firearms. Now Obama’s silence endorses Lautenberg’s latest attempt at banning guns.

Lautenberg plans to introduce legislation that would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales to people on terror watch lists. We must defeat this bill from giving extraordinary powers to limit gun sales to the Attorney General.

Lautenberg To Reveal Names on Secret List

The names of the people on the watch list are secret, and Lautenberg said he was frustrated by the F.B.I.’s refusal to disclose to investigators details and specific cases of gun purchases beyond the aggregate data.

Gun hater Lautenberg requested the gun grab study from the Government Accountability Office. He is using statistics, compiled in the report that is scheduled for public release next week to invade US citizen’s privacy and put more restrictions on the Second Amendment.

Lautenberg said he wanted a better understanding of who is being allowed to buy guns.

How you ask? Trial by innuendo and misinformation that has put 1,000,000 Americans and maybe even you on a terrorist watch list without your knowledge by saying: people placed on this government’s terrorist watch list can be stopped from getting on a plane or getting a visa, and will also be stopped from buying a gun.

Lautenberg wants gun purchases stopped for just being on the list. Current law states federal officials must find some other disqualification of a would-be gun buyer, like being a felon, an illegal alien or a drug addict.

Is your name on the list and can you get it removed?

The government’s consolidated watch list, used to identify people suspected of links to terrorists, has grown to more than one million names since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. It also has drawn widespread criticism over the prevalence of mistaken identities and unclear links to terrorism.

A CNN story raises questions about mistaken identities on the list – James Robinson is a retired Air National Guard brigadier general and a commercial pilot for a major airline who flies passenger planes around the country.

James Robinson is a retired brigadier general and a commercial pilot. His name is on the terrorist “watch list.”

He has even been certified by the Transportation Security Administration to carry a weapon into the cockpit as part of the government’s defense program should a terrorist try to commandeer a plane.

But there’s one problem: James Robinson, the pilot, has difficulty even getting to his plane because his name is on the government’s terrorist “watch list.”

That means he can’t use an airport kiosk to check in; he can’t do it online; he can’t do it curbside. Instead, like thousands of Americans whose names match a name or alias used by a suspected terrorist on the list, he must go to the ticket counter and have an agent verify that he is James Robinson, the pilot, and not James Robinson, the terrorist.

“Shocking’s a good word; frustrating,” Robinson — the pilot — said. “I’m carrying a weapon, flying a multimillion-dollar jet with passengers, but I’m still screened as, you know, on the terrorist watch list.”

History Repeating Itself?

The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to “…persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit.”

Lautenberg Must be Stopped

Recently Sens. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), Jack Reed (D-RI) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) have joined Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and victims and family members of the Virginia Tech tragedy, to introduce legislation to eliminate the private transfers of firearms and close the nation’s “gun show loophole.”

This Senate bill is in the Judiciary Committee, chaired by anti-gun liberal Democrat Leahy. Lautenberg’s gun hate is well documented and he says you are irrational if you support private gun sales.

“There is no rational reason to oppose closing the loophole. The reason it’s still not closed is simple: the continuing power of the special interest gun lobby in Washington” Sen. Lautenberg said ignoring the Constitution.

Lautenberg and the Gun Grabbers in the Senate are now tying to use the GAO to justify putting Americans on a secret gun ban list.

LAUTENBERG’S MOTIVES

Motives for his latest gun ban to are twofold:

  • First, he is taking small steps to enact gun control legislation this is just one step.
  • Second, eradicate the gun culture altogether.

All that seems to be on the minds of the Anti-Gun Senators and at the offices of gun control extremists is figuring out how to invade your privacy to erode and eventually destroy the right, and the means, of self-defense.

Now the Anti-Gun Coalitions are trying to use a self supporting GAO study to destroy the right of all Americans to keep and bear arms to protect themselves under the law. They are attacking and hiding behind an Anti-Terrorist Agenda while getting political and financial support from:

George Soros a Hungarian-born billionaire bank rolling efforts with his check book and spending more that $100 million to destroy the Constitution.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA) admitted that “guns would be banned and confiscated” if she could have her way.

The United Nations actively pushes globalism seeking to disarm all Americans.

We must Stop the Anti-Gun Coalition and get ready for the biggest gun control fight of the year from coast to coast. We can not do that without your support.

Stand up against this attack! Stand up for the right to not only defend yourself, but to defend your family, your children, your friends, and your classmates!

Alan Gottlieb
Chairman
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms