Archive for the ‘mysandry’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Rosen: Sotomayor won’t disappoint liberals

July 23, 2009

The soon to be anointed Justice Sotomeyor performed pretty much as I expected her to during the Senate conformation hearings. She doesn’t really frighten me so much as the next appointee sticks into a job for life. After all, replacing a sexist constitution hating member of the Supreme Court with another will not make all that much difference. The next one though? The impostor in chief just might get a Second Amendment ruling of the people kind… In any case Mike Rosen summed up the hearings pretty well. Read on;

Predictably, the confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor were mostly for show.

The senators played their roles, just as Sotomayor played hers. Democrats sang her praises and lobbed her softballs. Republicans homed in on her controversial decisions, which she deftly parried with contradictory assertions, evasions, rationalizations, circumlocutions and lateral arabesques.

When pressed to explain how she might rule on future cases, she liberally invoked the “Ginsburg rule,” institutionalized in 1993 when Ruth Bader Ginsburg refused to answer hypothetical questions during her confirmation hearing. (How do they get away with that? If you were interviewing someone for a job, wouldn’t you want to know how they’d deal with future contingencies?)

Alas, in politics, this is the way the game is played. Nominees hold their cards close to the vest. Candor takes a back seat to tap dancing, carefully crafted ambiguity, and declarations of motherhood and apple pie. Even Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts pulled their punches as nominees. The last Supreme Court candidate to say what he really believed — and eloquently, at that — was Robert Bork. He wasn’t confirmed.

As was expected, conservatives were unsatisfied with many of Sotomayor’s answers. But the mixed reviews on the left were more interesting. Pragmatists within the liberal establishment, rooting for Sotomayor, took her coy answers at face value and declared her to be respectably moderate. E.J. Dionne asserted that “she is the most conservative choice that President Obama could have made.” NPR’s oh-so-liberal judicial “reporter” Nina Totenberg hilariously opined on the “Charlie Rose” show that Sotomayor may be even more conservative on some issues than Justice Anthony Scalia!

Maureen Dowd lamented Sotomayor’s retreat from her earlier preening about the superiority of “a wise Latina woman” but explained why it was necessary. “As any clever job applicant knows,” admitted Dowd, “you must obscure as well as reveal, so she sidestepped the dreaded empathy questions — even though that’s why the president wants her.”

On the far left, political pragmatism gave way to doctrinaire ideological grandstanding. This was their moment to proudly proclaim their judicio-political creed. Dahlia Lithwick told MSNBC she was upset that Sotomayor and the Democrats “bought into [Chief Justice Roberts‘] notion that judges call balls and strikes” rather than ruling on their personal opinions.

Rabbi Michael Lerner, chair of the Network of Spiritual Progressives — and a socialist, one-world, Kumbaya utopian of the first order — urged Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to “make statements that explain why a liberal or progressive worldview is precisely what is needed on the Supreme Court.” If they had any backbone, Lerner said, they should declare: “We intend to vote for you, Judge Sotomayor. But we hope that you overcome this notion that you’ve been putting forward that your task on the Supreme Court is simply to enforce the law . . . we hopePresident Obama picked someone who was not just a passive ratifier of precedent, but a creative thinker who could look at the needs of American society today and help shape laws that fit these new realities.”

Lerner then rejected the “false notion that law is somehow impartial” and condemned the “rich white men” who made those laws and the “corporate power” they serve. Whew, what a mouthful!

Liberals needn’t worry. Sotomayor will be reliably “progressive,” if not the left-wing revolutionary Lerner hoped for. To believe otherwise, you’d have to imagine that theObama team got suckered by a closet conservative. No way. Only Republican presidents make mistakes like that. We’ll see soon enough when she takes her seat and starts casting votes and writing opinions. I’m betting Sotomayor will beRuth Bader Ginsburg with a Latino flavor.

Mike Rosen’s radio show airs weekdays from 9 a.m. to noon on 850-KOA.

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, mysandry, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 14 Comments »

Time to put the heat on your Senators as Sotomayor hearings begin.‏

July 13, 2009 
Should We be Surprised by Sotomayor's Radical Views?
-- Time to put the heat on your Senators as hearings begin

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

"I will be talking [to Judge Sotomayor] about the question of 
foreign law and the question of [her] commitment to the Second 
Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms....  President Obama, who 
nominated Judge Sotomayor, has a rather limited view of what the Second 
Amendment guarantees." -- Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), June 2009

Monday, July 13, 2009

Today, the U.S. Senate commences hearings on Justice Sonia Sotomayor, 
who was nominated by President Obama to replace the retiring Judge 
David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court.

In many ways, Sotomayor's views are out-of-step with our American 
heritage and with the views of Americans in general.  For example, 
Sotomayor believes that our fundamental law is constantly evolving and 
that rights are constantly changing with the times.

But should we be surprised?  The President who nominated her holds some 
of the most radical views ever held by a resident of the White House.  
His take on the Constitution -- and the Second Amendment in particular 
-- has stationed him to the far left on the political spectrum.

Consider just a small snapshot of his record over the years:

* As President, Obama has nationalized much of the car and banking 
industry and is now looking to do the same with health care.  Even the 
Marxist President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, joked on live television 
last month that he and Fidel Castro need to be careful or else "we 
are going to end up to [Obama's] right."

* As a U.S. Senator, Obama was ranked by the National Journal in 2007 
as the most liberal legislator in that chamber.  Realize that such a 
ranking put Obama to the left of 99 other Senators -- including an 
open, self-avowed socialist, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

* Like many socialists, Obama has supported some of the most extreme 
positions on gun control:  supporting a ban on handguns, opposing the 
repeal of the draconian DC gun ban, opposing the right of self-defense 
for residents in the Chicago suburbs, and much more.

Obama's brand of far-left politics sees the Constitution as moldable as 
a ball of wax.  In a 2001 interview, he criticized earlier Supreme 
Courts for "never ventur[ing] into the issues of redistribution of 
wealth....  It didn't break free from the essential constraints that 
were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution."

Sotomayor appears to have the same view of our highest document, as she 
stated in 1996 that law is not "static and predictable," but 
"constantly overhaul[ed] and adapt[ed] [by lawyers and courts] to 
the realities of ever-changing social, industrial and political 
conditions."

ACTION:  Please urge your two Senators to vote AGAINST the Sotomayor 
nomination.  Tell them to cast a pro-gun vote on EVERY vote related to 
Judge Sonia Sotomayor (whether it's a vote on sustaining a filibuster 
or a vote on final passage).

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

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

Dear Senator:

Judge Sonia Sotomayor's views are out-of-step with our American 
heritage and with the views of Americans in general.  Not surprisingly, 
the Rasmussen polling firm reported on July 1 that more Americans 
oppose her nomination than support her.

Sotomayor believes that our fundamental law is constantly evolving and 
that rights are constantly changing with the times.  But a majority of 
Americans disagree.  Multiple polls have found that almost 
three-fourths of all Americans believe that the Second Amendment of the 
U.S. Constitution protects the rights of "individuals" to own 
guns.  Not so for Judge Sotomayor:

* She ruled in United States v. Sanchez-Villar (2004) that "the 
right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

* And earlier this year, Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel 
which ruled in Maloney v. Cuomo that the Second Amendment does not 
apply to the states.  This makes her more liberal than the Ninth 
Circuit, which stated in the Nordyke case in April that the Second 
Amendment does apply to the states.

Please cast a pro-gun vote on EVERY vote related to Judge Sonia 
Sotomayor (whether it's a vote on sustaining a filibuster or a vote on 
final passage).

I would like to hear back from you on this.  Although rest assured, Gun 
Owners of America will keep me up to date on any further developments.

Sincerely,
---

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, mysandry, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on Time to put the heat on your Senators as Sotomayor hearings begin.‏

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

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Books, Domestic Violence, Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Immigration, Law, Men's Issues, mysandry, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Reading List, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 6 Comments »

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

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, Men's Issues, mysandry, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on Firearms Legislation In The 111th Congress

The Big lie is back…

July 9, 2009

It just never goes away, at least for the hopolophobes. The “ninety percent” lie that is. These people like to make it appear that you can just go down to your local Walmart and load up on grenades, machine guns, and RPG’s.

Mexican Standoff On Second Amendment

By DAN GIFFORD AND MICHAEL I. KRAUSSPosted 07/07/2009 05:41 PM ET

Big lies die slowly.

After a claim by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that 90% of Mexican drug dealers’ military weapons (machine guns, hand grenades and missiles) come from American gun stores was exposed as a lie several months ago, it’s back — this time with the imprimatur of the Government Accountability Office.

A June 21 CBS “60 Minutes” report by Anderson Cooper was clearly coordinated to coincide with release of the GAO report and a similar one by “activist” Josh Sugarmann.

You are likely to soon hear and read that the GAO report commissioned by Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., confirms what Mexico’s attorney general, Eduardo Medina-Mora, told Cooper: “Two thousand two hundred grenades, missile and rocket launchers!”

Cue Cooper as a video of machine guns, hand grenades and other weaponry fill the screen: “It turns out 90% of them are purchased in the U.S.”

That’s not all. You will hear from Sugarmann that Mexican drug dealers are buying FN Herstal Five-seven pistols from licensed U.S. gun merchants because those pistols fire bullets that penetrate protective body armor.

What you are unlikely to hear and read is that all such military weapons are illegal in the U.S., that Mexican criminals are supplied through an international black market and that this black market prominently features weapons the U.S. sold to the Mexican military and that are resold to drug cartels by corrupt Mexican officials.

Neither are you likely to hear or read that the vest-penetrating ammunition made for the FN Herstal Five-seven is available only to military and special police units.

The facts don’t matter. Reinstatement of the federal “assault weapon” ban that lapsed in 2004 matters, and is nothing short of a fetish among powerful supporters who will tell almost any untruth to achieve it.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she would pick the time and place to ram the ban through. The foundation work for her plan includes TV face time for renewal activists, and politicians and law enforcement organizations that will get larger budgets and more power if the ban is reinstated.

Journalists don’t always repeat these lies in bad faith. Often they publish untruths as a combination of journalistic ignorance of firearm features and laws, and anti-gun loathing common to the “metrosexual” class.

Canadian-born Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer admitted as much before the first “assault weapon” ban went into effect in 1994:

“The ‘assault weapons ban’ will have no effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. … Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of (all) weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.”

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

It appears I am not alone…

July 9, 2009

In criticizing the N.R.A. often I seem to be crying to the wilderness. At least as a member. All to often they pussy foot around, and the next thing you know we have lost some firearms freedom.

I urge my fellow members to do two things. First, send the N.R.A. leadership a message, as described in the Gun Owners of America alert below, and, also cut off any and all donations to them (NRA) until they really start to protect your rights. Then, send kudos or damnation to your state Attorney General as appropriate for their action or inaction in regard to the amicus brief covered in a post over at TexasFreds.

NRA's Past President Strikes Again!
-- Urges Senators "not to confirm Judge Sotomayor"

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

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Last week we told you how NRA's Past President Sandy Froman was
calling on all NRA members to vigorously oppose the nomination of
Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. She did this in response to
the "wait and see" approach that the NRA's upper management
has taken
in regard to the Sotomayor nomination -- an approach that may well
allow her to wiggle through and be confirmed.

Yesterday, Sandy Froman struck again. But this time she was joined
with another past president of the NRA and several current Board
members, as well.

"Judge Sotomayor's record on the Second Amendment causes us grave
concern over her treatment of this enumerated right [to keep and
bear arms]," the coalition stated.

"As Second Amendment leaders deeply concerned about preserving all
fundamental rights for current and future generations of Americans,
we strongly oppose this nominee, and urge the Senate not to confirm
Judge Sotomayor."

In related news, the NRA sent a letter yesterday to the Senate
Judiciary committee expressing "very serious concerns" over the
Sotomayor nomination, but said that the leadership "has not
announced an official position" out of respect for the confirmation
process. The letter indicated the NRA's management would be
watching the upcoming hearings very carefully.

One of the concerns about the hearing process, however, is that
Sotomayor will act exactly the same way Obama has. You will remember
that Obama tried to play himself off as a supporter of gun rights
during the presidential campaign, but then once he took office, began
showing his true colors.

Obama has nominated far-left gun banners to key positions of power --
including Attorney General Eric Holder, State Department counsel
Harold Koh and Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

It's not uncommon to see politicians tout the Bill of Rights when
trying to get elected or confirmed, but then act like a modern day
Benedict Arnold once they are safely entrenched.

If Judge Sotomayor is anything like the man who nominated her, she
will tell Senators what they want to hear during the Senate
proceedings, but then stab us in the back once she has secured a
lifetime appointment to the bench.

Folks, this is a huge battle. And that's why it's important to
have every single gun organization firing all of its political
ammunition. This is a battle that we can win. So even though we
already asked you to contact the NRA's management last week, it is
imperative that they hear from you again.

ACTION: Please urge the NRA's upper management to tell Senators
that a vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor is an anti-gun vote. You
can use the text message below -- addressed to NRA Executive Vice
President Wayne LaPierre and NRA Executive Director Chris Cox --
to help direct your comments to the NRA.

CONTACT INFO for the NRA:

Phone) (800) 392-8683
Webform) https://secure.nraila.org/Contact.aspx

----- Pre-written comments -----

Dear Mr. LaPierre and Mr. Cox:

I was so excited to see that past NRA President Sandy Froman -- in
coalition with several other past and present NRA leaders -- came
out in opposition the nomination of Judge Sotomayor.

In a letter dated July 7, the coalition stated that "we strongly
oppose this nominee, and urge the Senate not to confirm Judge
Sotomayor."

This is Froman's second communication in this regard, as she stepped
up to the plate on June 24 with a call to arms for all NRA members
to vigorously oppose the Sotomayor nomination.

"Gun owners, and especially the members of the National Rifle
Association," Froman said, "must aggressively oppose Judge
Sotomayor's confirmation to the Supreme Court."

I couldn't agree more with Mrs. Froman.

I hope that the NRA will officially tell Senators now -- and not wait
until after the hearings -- that a vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor
is an anti-gun vote. Please let me know what you intend to do.

Thank you.

Sincerely,


Wyoming Attorney General Signs Amicus Brief Supporting Second Amendment Incorporation
Please Thank Attorney General Bruce Salzburg!

Two-thirds of the nation’s attorneys general have filed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari in the case of NRA v. Chicago and hold that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This bi-partisan group of 33 attorneys general, along with the Attorney General of California in a separate filing, agrees with the NRA’s position that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms, disagreeing with the decision recently issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Attorney General Salzburg was one of the many who agrees that the Second Amendment is a fundamental individual right and signed the amicus brief. Please call Attorney General Salzburg at (307) 777-7841 and thank him for standing up in support of the Second Amendment. You may also e-mail him at agwebmaster@state.wy.us.

The State Attorneys General Amicus Brief can be found by clicking here.

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

Some dorks just can’t wait

July 6, 2009

Some people just can’t wait to jump on their favorite bandwagon despite recent history that one would think people would learn from. Can innocent Marines tried by the press before any trial come to mind?

I’m talking about the unfortunate death of football great Steve McNair. While never mentioning domestic violence the MSM and blogs are silent on the subject. This is a clear cut case of hopolophobia on the one part, (check the first link), and blatant mysandry on the other.

This is political correctness gone amok. If, and at this point it’s a very big if, this situation was in fact a murder suicide. Blame it on human nature, not on inanimate objects, and call it what it is. Domestic violence, pure and simple. Yes, even when it appears that the person that pulled the trigger was a woman. Even when that is not politically correct.

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

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

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Historical Quotes, Law, Men's Issues, mysandry, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 2 Comments »

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

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

Islam, and the Conquest of America

July 2, 2009

From Pamela at Atlas Shrugged (see sidebar) Newsletter we have an interesting bit of military / social strategy. Now, in normal times I would most probably just brush this off. It would seemingly be impossible. But things have changed pretty dramatically here in America. First and foremost the economy is in a shambles. Even the impostor in chief says that America is broke. The administration, along with treasonous elitist are seeking a total disarmament of the American people. Plus there are a growing number of Americans that want to “just say no” to the Federal government. Roll those things together with a profound failure to support liberty in Iran while at the same time refusing to support a democracy that ousted a sitting President for attempting to alter that nations constitution by fiat, and you have a colossal failure in leadership on so many levels that one might think that the United States of America was some bedeviled African nation being ran by thugs…

Now, add this bit into the stew of factors.

Islamic invasion of America: The 20 Point Plan

This sums up the Muslim Brotherhood project in America quite succinctly. On November 7, 2001,  international law enforcement authorities and Western intelligence agencies discovered a twenty-year old document revealing a top-secret plan developed by the oldest Islamist organization with one of the most extensive terror networks in the world to launch a program of “cultural invasion” and eventual conquest of the West that virtually mirrors the tactics used by Islamists for more than two decades.





Since that time information about this document, known in counterterrorism circles as “The Project”, and discussion regarding its content has been limited to the top-secret world of Western intelligence communities. Only through the work of an intrepid Swiss journalist, Sylvain Besson of Le Temps, and his book published in October 2005 in France, La conquête de l’Occident: Le projet secret des Islamistes (The Conquest of the West: The Islamists’ Secret Project), has information regarding The Project finally been made public. One Western official cited by Besson has described The Project as “a totalitarian ideology of infiltration which represents, in the end, the greatest danger for European societies.”

[…]

Included in the documents seized during the raid of Nada’s Swiss villa was a 14-page plan written in Arabic and dated December 1, 1982, which outlines a 12-point strategy to “establish an Islamic government on earth” – identified as The Project. According to testimony given to Swiss authorities by Nada, the unsigned document was prepared by “Islamic researchers” associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

If you want to read more of the Muslim Brotherhood project, go here.

U.S. Arab-American author outlines secret 20-year strategy to undermine country WND

A refugee from the Muslim Middle East thinks he has discovered Islam’s 20-point plan for conquering the United States by 2020

Anis Shorrosh, author of ”Islam Revealed” and ”The True Furqan,” is a Christian Arab-American who emigrated from Arab-controlled Jerusalem in January 1967.

”The following is my analysis of Islamic invasion of America, the agenda of Islamists and visible methods to take over America by the year 2020,” Shorrosh says. ”Will Americans continue to sleep through this invasion as they did when we were attacked on 9/11?”

1. Terminate America’s freedom of speech by replacing it with statewide and nationwide hate-crime bills.

2. Wage a war of words using black leaders like Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Jesse Jackson  and other visible religious personalities who promote Islam as the religion of African-Americans while insisting Christianity is for whites only. What they fail to tell African-Americans is that it was Arab Muslims who captured them and sold them as slaves. In fact, the Arabic word for black and slave is the same, ”Abed.”

3. Engage the American public in dialogues, discussions, debates in colleges, universities, public libraries, radio, TV, churches and mosques on the virtues of Islam. Proclaim how it is historically another religion like Judaism and Christianity with the same monotheistic faith.

4. Nominate Muslim sympathizers to political office to bring about favorable legislation toward Islam and support potential sympathizers by block voting.

5. Take control of as much of Hollywood, the press, TV, radio and the Internet as possible by buying the related corportations or a controlling stock.

6. Yield to the fear of the imminent shut-off of the lifeblood of America – black gold. America’s economy depends on oil and 41 percent of it comes from the Middle East.

7. Yell ”foul, out-of-context, personal interpretation, hate crime, Zionist, un- American, inaccurate interpretation of the Quran” anytime Islam is criticized or the Quran is analyzed in the public arena.

8. Encourage Muslims to penetrate the White House, specifically with Islamists who can articulate a marvelous and peaceful picture of Islam. Acquire government positions and get membership in local school boards. Train Muslims a medical doctors to dominate the medical field, research and pharmaceutical l companies (Ever notice how numerous Muslim doctors in America are, when their countries need them more desperately than America?) Take over the computer industry. Establish Middle Eastern restaurants throughout the U.S. to connect planners of Islamization in a discreet way.

9. Accelerate Islamic demographic growth via:

  • Massive immigration (100,000 annually since 1961).

  • Use no birth control whatsoever – every baby of Muslim parents is automatically a Muslim and cannot choose another religion later.

  • Muslim men must marry American women and Islamize them (10,000 annually). Then divorce them and remarry every five years – since one can’t legally marry four at one time. This is a legal solution in America.

  • Convert angry, alienated black inmates and turn them into militants (so far 2,000 released inmates have joined al-Qaida worldwide). Only a few ”sleeper cells” have been captured in Afghanistan and on American soil.

10. Reading, writing, arithmetic and research through the American educational system, mosques and student centers (now 1,500) should be sprinkled with dislike of Jews, evangelical Christians and democracy. There are currently 300 exclusively Muslim schools in the U.S. which teach loyalty to the Quran, not the U.S. Constitution. In January of 2002, Saudi Arabia’s Embassy in Washington mailed 4,500 packets of the Quran and videos promoting Islam to America’s high schools – free of charge. Saudi Arabia would not allow the U.S. to reciprocate.

11. Provide very sizeable monetary Muslim grants to colleges and universities in America to establish ”Centers for Islamic studies” with Muslim directors to promote Islam in higher-education institutions.

12. Let the entire world know through propaganda, speeches, seminars, local and national media that terrorists have hijacked Islam, when in truth, Islam hijacked the terrorists.

13. Appeal to the historically compassionate and sensitive Americans for sympathy and tolerance towards Muslims in America who are portrayed as mainly immigrants from oppressed countries.

14. Nullify America’s sense of security by manipulating the intelligence community with misinformation. Periodically terrorize Americans with reports of impending attacks on bridges, tunnels, water supplies, airports, apartment buildings and malls.

15. Form riots and demonstrations in the prison system demanding Islamic Sharia as the way of life, not America’s justice system.

16. Open numerous charities throughout the U.S., but use the funds to support Islamic terrorism with American dollars.

17. Raise interest in Islam on America’s campuses by insisting freshman take at least one course on Islam.

18. Unify the numerous Muslim lobbies in Washington, mosques, Islamic student centers, educational organizations, magazines and papers by Internet and an annual convention to coordinate plans, propagate the faith and engender news in the media.

19. Send intimidating messages and messengers  

to the outspoken individuals who are critical of Islam and seek to eliminate them by hook or crook.

20. Applaud Muslims as loyal citizens of the U.S. by spotlighting their voting record as the highest percentage of all minority and ethic groups in America.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, Men's Issues, Military Science, mysandry, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, War, Warfare, Wordpress Political Blogs | 3 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »