Winston Churchill said
Si Vis Paceum Para Bellum

Sam Adams, more than beer

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen”
Samuel Adams

Lincoln on power

"We must prevent these things being done, by either congresses or courts — The people — the people — are the rightful masters of both Congresses, and courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it —" Abraham Lincoln

Thursday, December 10, 2009

The absurdity of gun control

Gun control has always been a contentious issue between Democrats and Republicans. On one hand the Democrats believe that more guns contributes to more violence in society. On the other hand Republicans and Libertarians (and other constitutionalists) deeply defend the second amendment in the bill of rights which states:

"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."

It is no accident that the right to bear arms comes second to the right of free speech, press, assembly and so on. Many Democrats misinterpret the phrase claiming that when the Bill of Rights was drafted it was indeed necessary to have "a well regulated militia" because of the British threat as well as other foreign threats of the era. Therefore, they conclude it is no longer necessary because of the United States strong military.

There are also many myths involved regarding guns which are played up by the mainstream media. The first involving gun related deaths among children. In truth, more children die each year by accidents involving bicycles, space heaters, and drownings. Each time a gun accident does happen with a child, it usually receives a fair amount of press and helps exacerbate this myth. A figure of twelve children deaths per day is often cited to back the dangers of guns; when in fact the age group associated with the number goes all the way up to the age of twenty. Many of which are gang related deaths.

There has also been much hype about school shootings ever since the Columbine incident and several other major tragedies. I contend that if a person is fully determined to take the lives of others in a freak occurrence, they will do so no matter what. A good example is the recent shootings at Fort Hood. Clearly the perpetrators of these crimes had no regard for human life whatsoever, including their own.

An interesting fact which helps prove my argument is the lack of violent deaths in states where law abiding citizens are under the conceal and carry law. An average of the 31 states who have such laws, also have "a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons."

A misinterpretation of the second amendment has caused many to become in favor of gun control. Personal defense against criminals is not the intentended purpose. The founding fathers knew that an armed citizenry prevented the government from becoming too powerful and taking away citizens natural rights. It is no surprise that several governments have unarmed their populations in order to take control of them. Perhaps, one of the best known incidents of dearming a population happened in germany before Hitler began shuttling Jews, Gays, and others off to camps. If the population had been armed, they would have had the chance to fight back and even form their own groups to fight against the injustices being brought against them.

Most importantly, the constitution grants the right for law abiding citizens to be gun owners. Regulation of gun control only hurts those are legally purchasing guns and not breaking any laws using them. Regulation also creates a black market for illegal weapons, where most criminals acquire guns for violent purposes. Taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens while criminals are still able to acquire them illegally would only lead to more violence, since criminals would no longer be threatened by the chance one of their victims will shoot back.

Today, with a Democratic administration and Democratic congress, our gun rights could be under attack. Proposals to raise the price of ammunition drastically and also make certain models of guns illegal may not be too far off. Once again, Democrats have not fully reasoned through these proposals and could hurt sportsman and even make our country less safe .

Saturday, November 28, 2009

U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade

By Arshad Mohammed

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."

"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement.

While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous.

"The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.

However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal."

"Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause," said Oxfam International's policy adviser Debbie Hillier.

The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.

Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.

Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.

The main opponent of the treaty in the past was the U.S. Bush administration, which said national controls were better. Last year, the United States accounted for more than two-thirds of some $55.2 billion in global arms transfer deals.

Arms exporters China, Russia and Israel abstained last year in a U.N. vote on the issue.

The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of "dictators and terrorists" to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.

The U.S. lobbying group the National Rifle Association has also opposed the treaty.

A resolution before the U.N. General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012.

But we don't have to worry, they aren't after our guns. Yeah, right. Obama, Clinton and Holder are some of the biggest supporteres of doing away with our right to bear arms. Well, here's a message for all of those liberal panty wetters. The guns I own now I will own till the day I die, MOLON LABE.

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Holder tells Senate committee Justice Department supports more 'gun control'

In unmistakably clear admissions before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Nov. 18, Attorney General Eric Holder signaled strong administration support for additional "gun control" edicts.

Law Enforcement Alliance of America, the only national law enforcement organization to oppose Holder's confirmation, issued a press release warning:

Drawing reasonable conclusions from what Holder publicly said, we now know:

• Holder wants a national, permanent gun registration system administered by law enforcement. A registration of honest citizens that have cleared the federal background check for gun purchases with those records permanently retained by and shared among law enforcement.

• Holder wants new federal authority to prohibit any person on the federal watch list (reported to be 400,000 names) from buying guns and supports confiscating guns from those on the list who possess them.

But I thought all of you naysayers said the government didn't want to take guns away from citizens? Holder (the brains behind Waco) has always belived that the only ones that should have guns is law enforcement and the military.

And as we've seen before, that "no fly list" nets some peculiar catches:

U.S. Sen. Edward M. "Ted" Kennedy said yesterday that he was stopped and questioned at airports on the East Coast five times in March because his name appeared on the government's secret "no-fly" list.

Besides which, our entire criminal justice system is supposed to be based on presumption of innocence. But let's explore the rationale of those who think differently: If denying gun purchases to people on government suspicion lists is "good" (an no one thinks this will be limited to Al-Qaeda and not include "homegrown" persons of interest, do they?), then disarming these suspects and taking away their existing arms must be "better."

Of course it won't. Every veteran that is considered a terrorist threat is going to have their rights stripped and probably won't even know it. That is untill they try to buy a gun and are denied. Registering guns serves only one purpose, confiscation. Just ask 6 million jews about that. Oh, Wait, you can't because they are all dead. Exterminated by a government that required registration of all firearms and then confiscated them. Can't happen here? Hopefully their efforts will be defeated. I will not register my guns, period. It's none of the governments buisness what I own.

From the LEAA press release,

Attorney General Holder Reveals Aggressive Gun Control In Response to Ft. Hood Terror Attack

WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Before the Senate Judiciary Committee November 18th, 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder revealed a stunningly broad and aggressive anti-gun agenda.

"The President of the United States asked that politicians not use the Ft. Hood attack to engage in 'political theater.' It appears those committed to attacking gun owners and the Second Amendment simply can't help themselves and are engaged in blaming guns and gun owners on the heels of this terrorist attack. Sadly it looks like 'politics as usual,'" said LEAA's spokesperson, Ted Deeds.

After explaining and defending his decision to give enemy combatants constitutional protections and the right to public trial in civilian courts, Attorney General Holder revealed his support for a national gun owner registration scheme and authorizing the government to ban firearm possession for any person by merely adding that person's name to the terror watch list.

Drawing reasonable conclusions from what Holder publicly said, we now know:

Holder wants a national, permanent gun registration system administered by law enforcement. A registration of honest citizens that have cleared the federal background check for gun purchases with those records permanently retained by and shared among law enforcement.

Holder wants new federal authority to prohibit any person on the federal watch list (reported to be 400,000 names) from buying guns and supports confiscating guns from those on the list who possess them.

Transcribing General Holder: "The position of the Administration is that there should be a basis for law enforcement to share information about gun purchases." "... [It's not] inconsistent to allow law enforcement agencies to share that kind of information, for that information to be retained and then to be shared by law enforcement." "It seems incongruous to me that we would bar certain people from flying on airplanes because they are on the terrorist watch list and yet we would still allow them to posses weapons." {Emphasis added}

LEAA's Executive Director Jim Fotis said, "Those behind the badge don't believe more restrictions on honest gun owners is a reasonable, practical or constitutional response to acts of terrorism. As a retired officer, I know that America's men and women in blue want to fight terrorism, to stop terrorists; not waste time keeping records on innocent gun owners!"

I was very vocal about the appointment of Holder to the AG position. When I expressed my reservations to Sen. Grassley I was ignored. Grassley voted to approve this abbomination to the top cop spot. This is the position of the Obama administration. They have a agenda to relive all law abiding citizens of the means to protect themselves. Holder is just one cog in the wheel.

Monday, November 16, 2009

Obama's public opton for Gitmo

The Obama Administration announced this morning that it intends to ship five Guantanamo Bay detainees to New York to be tried in civilian federal court. One of those men is the September 11th mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammad.

This decision will be seen by many liberals as paving the way for closing the Guantanamo Bay facility. It is also an olive branch by an Administration facing growing criticism from its own party for its failure to move forward on closing the facility by its January 22nd deadline. In fact, the President has been battered lately by the left for staying too close to Bush Administration terrorism policies. So close in fact, that the Obama Administration had announced its intent to continue to use military tribunals despite Obama’s feverish opposition to such an idea during the Presidential campaigns.

Obama tried to make his case today for this decision by stating that Khalid Sheik Mohammad, one of the four set to be tried, would be subject to “the most exacting demands of justice.” But this move would be anything but justice.

Civilian courts are horribly situated to handle the prosecution of these types of detainees. Not only there potential security concerns associated with transporting such high-value detainees thousands of miles away, but these five men, charged with crimes related to the attacks of 9/11 would be tried in New York City, the very same location of the attacks. Defense lawyers are sure to argue that the venue is prejudicial paving the way for multiple due process challenges.

While this decision will certainly appease those seeking to erode America’s ability to prosecute war criminals under a military tribunal, there is no reason to believe a military tribunal isn’t capable of exacting justice on these four suspects. Placing these detainees in a domestic criminal proceeding creates evidentiary, security, and procedural issues. These detainees are not common criminals—but individuals that committed an act of war against the United States. Not only does the law sufficiently provide for use of military tribunals, common sense demands it.

The Obama Administration’s scattered counterterrorism policies, littered with efforts to placate the left while recognizing the legitimacy of some Bush era policies, are an invitation for terrorists to take advantage of America’s divisions. Obama needs to be clear, forceful, and direct, sending the message that America won’t stand for terrorism.

Just what we need. Bring the terrorists to this country so their buddies will have a easier time trying to bust then out. Or have another attack on NYC. These are enemy combatant captured on the field of battle. Their trial should remain a military matter. Terrorisim has no place in a civilian court. The military tribunual was already under way and now we are supposed to try them in a civilian court? are we going to give them the same rights that a American would have? This is more than a travesty, it's just plain stupid. They should be left at Gitmo and let the tribunual do the trying.

Task force seeks ban on assault weapons

By Spencer S. Hsu

Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, November 13, 2009

A binational task force on U.S.-Mexico border issues will call Friday on the Obama administration and Congress to reinstate an expired ban on assault weapons and for Mexico to overhaul its frontier police and customs agencies to mirror the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Here we go again. The guns they want to ban are not assault weapons. A assault weapon is a sholder fired, select fire arm capable of full automatic fire. The weapons they want to ban are semi auto only look alikes. It does absolutly nothing to deter crime. Criminals do not buy guns at gun shops and gun shows. The new list that they have come up with will ban everything that is semi auto. Including all semi auto shotguns and rifles. Rifles like the Ruger 10/22. one of the most popular target and plinking rifles made. It will get rid of those pesky Remington 1100s and other shotguns used in sport shooting and hunting. Their ultimate goal is total disarmament of the people. This is where they start because "assault" weapons are scary.

The recommendations are among a broad set of security, trade, development and environmental proposals that come as President Obama and his Mexicans counterpart, Felipe Calderón, move to deepen engagement on issues including economic recovery, climate change, illegal immigration and narcotics trafficking.
Robert C. Bonner, the U.S. co-chairman of the private task force, which included several former senior government officials from both countries, said the changes could be included in a follow-up to the Merida initiative, a $1.4 billion three-year commitment of U.S. aid to support Mexico's crackdown on drug cartels that ends next year.
The proposals "will transform management of the border from a source of contention and frustration into a model of cooperation," states a report by the Los Angeles-based Pacific Council on International Policy and the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations titled, "Rethinking the U.S.-Mexico Border." The 30-member task force blamed lack of collaboration for violence, billions of dollars in lost economic opportunities and a public perception of a "broken" system.

The system is broken. The first thing we need to do is seal up the border. Step 2 should be round up all the illegals and ship them home. Where ever home is. And it's not just Mexicans. There are illegals here from all over the world. Including from terrorist harboring nations. And what about the billions od dollars sent across the border that illegals are sending home?

The study comes as Mexico's struggle to combat narco-traffickers and public corruption from the multibillion-dollar North American drug trade has forged a tighter relationship between the neighbors. In reaction, policy analysts and think tanks, most recently the School of the Northern Border in Mexico and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, have developed border development proposals.
Skeptics say U.S. attention to its troubled partner is outpaced by what it spends to combat drugs in places such as Colombia or Afghanistan, while the southbound flow of weapons into Mexico -- where private gun ownership is illegal -- has been a flashpoint as Mexico's death toll from drug-related violence has topped 15,000.

In Mexico City in April, Obama pledged to push the Senate to ratify an inter-American arms-trafficking treaty but backed away from a campaign promise to reinstate a ban on assault weapons that Congress let expire in 2004. Obama said that it would be too difficult politically to enact new gun legislation soon and that enforcing existing measures would have a more immediate effect.

Maybe he knows trying to ban any kind of gun would be political suicide. Look what happened the last time. Congress enacted the so called asault weapons ban and the very next election, lost control of both houses. Want to see a replay? Gun owners are sick and tired of being vilified everytime some other coountry can't control their own crime.

Mexican officials want a ban, saying that 90 percent of guns seized in drug crimes in Mexico and submitted for tracing to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives originate in the United States, including most assault rifles.

This is a lie that has been disproven time after time. The number is 17%. Most of their weapons come from overseas and are smuggled in. And then there are all of their nice American made M16s. The ones the desserters from the military take with them when they go. The ones sold to the Mexican government by the biggest arms dealer in the world, the United States. And where are they getting all of those rocket launcers, grenades and land mines. I've never seen those items for sale in a gun shop.

Bonner, who led U.S. drug enforcement and customs agencies under Republican administrations from 1990 to 1993 and from 2002 to 2005, said the task force sought to identify bold steps for each side. Bonner took over the panel from Alan D. Bersin, whom Obama has nominated to lead U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Task force co-chairman Andres Rozental, former deputy foreign minister of Mexico, said Mexico should realign and strengthen 16 agencies that share border responsibilities to combat corruption and improve coordination with the DHS, as Canada did after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Mexico has taken some steps, including hiring 1,400 new customs agents.

And just how long will it be before they are as corrupt as the rest of the Mexican government? They have one of the most corrupt governments in the world.

Mexico is the third-largest U.S. trading partner and the No. 2 destination for U.S. exports, he noted. The panel recommended adding private border crossings that collect tolls and prioritizing jointly planned improvements based on economic benefit.
If the United States legalizes most of its illegal immigrants and allows for a flexible flow of legal workers, Mexico should stop illegal immigration from its side of the border, the panel said.

And there it is, AMNESTY. We are supposed to give 20 million criminals amnesty because the President of Mexico thinks it would be good. Plus they want to let more in. These people have a lot of nerve.

Monday, November 9, 2009

Officials: U.S. Aware of Hasan Efforts to Contact al Qaeda

What was our government thinking. If he was trying to contact our enemies, why didn't they do something? Instead we have 13 dead soldiers and who knows how many that could be crippled for life. All in the name of political correctness. Dept. of National Intelligence? How about the Dept. of National Stupididty. Our country is being run by a bunch of politically correct idiots. This is from ABC news.

Army Major in Fort Hood Massacre Used 'Electronic Means' to Connect with Terrorists

U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News.
Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan tried to make contact with people linked to al Qaeda.It is not known whether the intelligence agencies informed the Army that one of its officers was seeking to connect with suspected al Qaeda figures, the officials said.
One senior lawmaker said the CIA had, so far, refused to brief the intelligence committees on what, if any, knowledge they had about Hasan's efforts.
CIA director Leon Panetta and the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, have been asked by Congress "to preserve" all documents and intelligence files that relate to Hasan, according to the lawmaker.

On Sunday, Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) called for an investigation into whether the Army missed signs as to whether Hasan was an Islamic extremist.
"If Hasan was showing signs, saying to people that he had become an Islamist extremist, the U.S. Army has to have a zero tolerance," Lieberman told Fox News Sunday.

Investigators want to know if Hasan maintained contact with a radical mosque leader from Virginia, Anwar al Awlaki, who now lives in Yemen and runs a web site that promotes jihad around the world against the U.S.
In a blog posting early Monday titled "Nidal Hassan Did the Right Thing," Awlaki calls Hassan a "hero" and a "man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people."
According to his site, Awlaki served as an imam in Denver, San Diego and Falls Church, Virginia.
The Associated Press reported Sunday that Major Hasan attended the Falls Church mosque when Awlaki was there.

The Telegraph of London reported that Awlaki had made contact with two of the 9/11 hijackers when he was in San Diego.
He denied any knowledge of the hijacking plot and was never charged with any crime. After an intensive investigation by the FBI, Awlaki moved to Yemen.
People who knew or worked with Hasan say he seemed to have gradually become more radical in his disapproval of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A fellow Army doctor who studied with Hasan, Val Finell, told ABC News, "We would frequently say he was a Muslim first and an American second. And that came out in just about everything he did at the University.
Finell said he and other Army doctors complained to superiors about Hasan's statements.

"And we questioned how somebody could take an oath of office…be an officer in the military and swear allegiance to the constitution and to defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic and have that type of conflict," Finell told ABC News.
The Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey, raised concerns over the weekend that innocent Muslim soldiers could suffer as a result of the shooting at Fort Hood.
"I think the speculation (on Hasan's Islamic roots) could potentially heighten backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers," he said on ABC's "This Week."

Nothing like knowing you have a terrorist in the ranks and not doing anything about it. Just how many red flags do these people need? He was born in this country yet put "Palestinian" as his nationality. What's wrong with being "American". I don't put Irish as my nationality. I have always been and will always be a American. At the very least after some of the statements he made he should have been cut loose from the Military. Even after all of the money they invested in him. Sometimes it's better to cut your losses and move on.
The thing that in a way makes this funny, Our own government says I'm a potential terrorist. Just because I am outspoken about things the government does, I'm a veteran and I own guns. But I've never gunned down innocent people. I think our government needs to get their priorities straight.

Saturday, November 7, 2009

PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail

Straight from the horses mouth so to speak.

JCT Confirms Failure to Comply with Democrats’ Mandate Can Lead to 5 Years in Jail

Friday, November 06, 2009

Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

In response to the JCT letter, Camp said: “This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.”

Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below:

“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]

- - - - - - - - - -

“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]

- - - - - - - - - -

“Criminal penalties

Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:

• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]

When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties. The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.

“The Senate Finance Committee had the good sense to eliminate the extreme penalty of incarceration. Speaker Pelosi’s decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates. Fortunately, Republicans have an alternative that will lower health insurance costs without raising taxes or cutting Medicare,” said Camp.

According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker’s bill would cost $15,000 in 2016.

The mother who brought down the Fort Hood killer

Why couldn't I find this in the American press? Why did it take a paper from the U.K. to report it?

Chris Ayres in Fort Hood, Texas

(Taken from Twitter)

Kimberly Munley

A police officer and mother of one was hailed a heroine yesterday after it emerged that she almost single handedly ended the massacre at America’s biggest military base.

Kimberly Munley does not look as if she would be much of a match for a heavily armed US soldier on a murderous rampage. But the slightly built 34-year-old civilian officer was first on the scene after Major Nidal Malik Hasan began firing on comrades at Ford Hood in Texas as they prepared to deploy to Afghanistan and Iraq. The 39-year-old psychologist killed 13 and left 31 others with serious injuries.

On Thursday afternoon Ms Munley was doing her usual job of directing traffic on the sprawling base. By chance, she and her partner happened to walk past the Soldiers’ Readiness Processing Centre soon after Major Hasan — armed with two handguns — cornered his fellow soldiers. Soldiers who witnessed the rampage described the gunfire as continuous, methodical and well aimed.

Ms Munley succeeded in bringing him down by shooting him four times, even after being hit by a bullet that passed through both her legs, according to witnesses.

Her swift reaction and courage were being praised last night for preventing many more deaths.

“It was an amazing and aggressive performance by this police officer,” said Lieutenant-General Robert Cone, Fort Hood’s commanding officer. “The critical factor here was her quick response to the situation.”

President Obama led the nation’s mourning yesterday and will visit Fort Hood for a memorial service in the coming days. He ordered all flags at the White House and other federal buildings to be flown at half mast until Veterans Day on November 11. But he urged Americans against “jumping to conclusions” about the killer’s motives.

Major Hasan, a Muslim and an expert in combat stress, survived the shooting and is now being treated in a nearby hospital, under armed guard.

It emerged yesterday that he was opposed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and had tried to buy his way out of the army rather than being deployed overseas. The request was turned down.

He had shouted the Arabic phrase Allahu akbar (God is greatest) before opening fire, witnesses said.

Ms Munley, the mother of a three-year-old girl, is in a stable condition, with injuries to the upper leg and thigh. General Cone said her fearless response to the gunman had saved countless lives. Trained in active-response tactics, she rushed into the building where he was shooting, and confronted him directly. Officials confirmed that she had continued firing even after being hit.

Those who treated the police officer said that her first request after being taken to hospital was to call her colleagues and friends to let them know she was OK — and to find out about casualty numbers.

Her stepmother, Wanda Barbour, said Ms Munley was an oustanding police officer. “She’s concerned about all the people who’ve lost their lives,” she said. “We’re just real proud of her and so grateful and thankful to the Lord that she’s going to be okay.”

General Cone said that Ms Munley’s actions demonstated that an aggressive response to a mass-shooting can save lives. “She walked up and engaged him,” he said.

This woman is a true hero.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Come and meet Dave Funk, Candidate for congress district 3

This saturday Oct. 31st. The Second Amendment March and Iowa Carry Inc. are sposoring a meet and greet for Dave Funk. Dave is running for the district 3 seat now held by Leonard Boswell. It will be held at the Waveland Cafe at the corner of Walnut and SE 30th. Come on by and meet Dave and have one of the best cups of coffee around. And for those that are curious, you can meet me too. Hope to see a lot of you there.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Know the Obama Czar's by Shawn Roberts

What a bunch of communists and whack jobs. Where in the hell was the Senate on this. This has to be a direct violation of the Advise and Consent clause of the Constitution. Thanks to Oath Keepers for the heads up.

Obama's Czars

Afghanistan Czar: Richard

Holbrooke- Ultra liberal anti gun former Gov.of

New Mexico. Pro Abortion and legalize drug use.

Believes capitalism causes most wars

strongly supports Amnesty for illegal aliens

no military or counter insurgency experience

AIDS Czar: Jeffrey Crowley

Homosexual. A Gay Rights activist.

Believes in Gay Marriage and Special Status

for gays. "Gay men are usually more intelligent".

Supports NAMBLA

Auto recovery Czar: Ed Montgomery

Black radical anti business activist. Affirmative Action and

Job Preference for blacks. Univ of Maryland Business

School Dean teaches US business has caused world poverty.

ACORN board member. Believes US should pay slave reparations

Communist DuBois Club member.

Border Czar: Alan Bersin-

failed former superintendent of San Diego.

Ultra Liberal friend of Hilary Clinton. Served as

Border Czar under Janet Reno - to keep borders open to

illegals. Member of chicanos unidos.

California Water Czar: David J. Hayes Sr.

Fellow of radical environmentalist group,

"Progress Policy". supports Kyoto protocal

No training or experience in water management.

Thinks US should pay reparations for Hiroshima

Car Czar: Ron Bloom- Longtime UAW activist

Believes Capitalism the cause of terrorism and global warming.

Has worked hard to force US auto makers out of business.

Sits on the Board of Chrysler which is now owned by UAW.

How did that happen?

Central Region Czar: Dennis Ross

Believes US policy has caused Mid East wars.

believes in open borders Anti gun and pro abortion.

Believes in eradication of "violence gene"

Domestic Violence Czar:Lynn Rosenthal

Director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence.

Vicious anti male feminist. Supported male castration-

testosterone should be controlled substace

Believes Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand

Masterbation should be taught in Sex ed.

Drug Czar:Gil Kerlikowske- devoted lobbyist

for every restrictive gun law proposal

Former Chief of Police in Liberal Seattle.

Believes no American should own any firearm.

Supports legalization of narcotics.

Believes Crack "designed" to target blacks

Economic Czar:Paul Volcker Head of Fed Reserve

under Jimmy Carter when US economy nearly failed.

Obama appointed head of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board

which engineered the Obama economic disaster to US economy.

Member of anti capitalist "Progressive Policy" organization.

Supports Kyoto accord, cap and trade

Energy and Environment Czar:Carol Brower- Former head of EPA

known for anti-business activism.Strong anti-gun ownership.

Out spoken supporter of "earth first"

believes GW bush invaded Iraq at "behest" of oil companies

Supports kyoto protocol, cap & trade, anti- nuclear

strongly opposes any more oil exploration/drilling

Faith-Based Czar:Joshua DuBois

Political Black activist Degree in Black Nationalism.

Supports slave reparations

Believes GW Delayed Katrina response

Anti gun ownership lobbyist.

Stated engineered AIDS virus "genocide" of black africa

Great Lakes Czar:Cameron Davis

Chicago radical anti capitalist environmentalist.

Blames GW Bush for"Poisoning the water that minorities drink."

No experience or training in water management.

Former ACORN Board member

Green Jobs Czar: Van Jones-(since resigned).

Black activist Member of American communist

Party and San Francisco Communist Party who said Geo

Bush caused the 911 attack and wanted Bush investigated by

the World Court for war crimes. Black activist with

strong anti-white views.

Guantanamo Closure Czar:Daniel Fried -Rights activist

for Foreign Terrorists. called Israel "American colony"

Believes America the cause of war on terrorism.

Believes GW bush planned 9/11 attacks

Health Czar: Nancy Ann DeParle.Former head Medicare / Medicaid.

Strong Health Care Rationing proponent.

Believes guns are a "health risk"

strongly favors govt subsidy for abortion on demand

married to a New York Times reporter

stated "poverty the cause of most preventable deaths"

Information Czar:Vivek Kundra- born in New Delhi,India.

believes all public information, including labels and news

releases and advertising should be controlled. favors

large expansion of ongoing "echelon" intelligence monitering

of private e-mail by foreign intelligence services

favors wider "discretionary" wiretap powers for local law


International Climate Czar: Todd Stern Anti-business

former White House chief of Staff- Strong supporter

of the Kyoto Accord. Pushing hard for Cap and Trade.

Blames US business for Global warming.

Believes fossil fuels are a "war crime"

Intelligence Czar: Dennis Blair- Ret Navy.

Stopped US Anti- missile program as "provocative".

Chair of ultra liberal "Council on Foreign Relations"

which blames American organizations for regional wars.

wants end of any support for Israel

MideastPeace Czar: George Mitchell

Former senator from Maine- Left wing radical. Has

said Israel should be split up into "2 or 3 "smaller

more manageable plots". increased funding for Gaza

US should fund large re-building effort in southern Lebanon

US Should force Israel to make half of knesset muslim

Anti-nuclear anti-gun & pro homosexual.

Pay Czar: Kenneth Feinberg- Chief of Staff to TED KENNEDY.

Trial Lawyer who got rich off the 911 victims payoffs.

Regulatory Czar: Cass Sunstein- Liberal activist judge

believes free speech needs to be limited for the "common good".

Rules against personal freedoms many times- anti 2nd amend.

Animal rights advocate (animals have right to vote!) and

anti-hunting (hunting is murder) Advocate of radical environmetal Animal Liberation Front (ALF)

Science Czar: John Holdren- Fierce ideological

environmentalist, Sierra Club, Anti business activist.

Claims capitalism has caused world poverty,global warming.

supports slave reparations, cap and trade,kyoto protocol,

"earth first!" abortion, open borders, cloning and zero

population growth. No degrees in Science.

Stimulus Accountability Czar: Earl Devaney

spent career trying to take guns away from American

citizens.Believes in Open Borders to Mexico.

Author of statement blaming US gun stores for

drug war in Mexico.

Sudan Czar: J. Scott Gration-

Native of Democratic Republic of Congo. Believes

US does little to help Third World countries. Council

on foreign relations, demands higher US taxes to support UN

Thinks US should "do more" to stop spread of AIDS in africa

TARP Czar: Herb Allison- Fannie May CEO responsible

for the US recession by using real estate mortgages to back

up the US stock market. Caused millions of people

to lose their life savings.

Terrorism Czar:John Brennan- Anti CIA activist.

No training in diplomatic, gov. affairs or intelligence

Believes Open Borders to Mexico and has suggested "dialog"

and diversity training as a way to deal with terrorists

suggested Obama disband US military and intelligence agencies.

Technology Czar:Aneesh Chopra- No formal education in

Technology. Worked for the Advisory Board Company,

a health care think tank for hospitals. Anti doctor activist.

Openly Supports Health care Rationing as "obvious" and

salaried doctors working exclusively for the care plan.

Supports "Homeopathic, chiropractic, acupuncture, vitamin therapy

and other "nontraditional" treatments

Urban Affairs Czar:Adolfo Carrion Jr.- Puerto Rican.

Anti American activist and leftist group leader in Latin America.

Millionaire "slum lord" of the Bronx, NY. Owns many lavish homes

and condos which he got from "sweetheart" deals with labor unions.

Wants higher taxes to pay for minority housing and health care.

Weapons Czar: Ashton Carter- Leftist.

Wants all private weapons in US destroyed. Supports UN

ban on firearms ownership in America.No Other "policy"

WMD Policy Czar:Gary Samore- Former US Communist.

believes US should pay reparations to Japan for Atomic bombs

Wants US to destroy all nuclear weapons unilaterally

as a show of good faith. Has no other "policy".

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

When To Take Up Arms

Also posted on the Des Moines Register.

From my Frien Skip Coryell.

Yesterday I was teaching a concealed carry class and I heard myself say "Most people, whether they realize it or not, have a point where they will take another human life." Many times I've run across people who tell me they don't believe in violence and some even say they couldn't hurt another person to save their own lives. I'm not sure I believe some of them. Personally, anyone who tries to hurt me or my family, their life is forfeit.

And then I got to thinking along the same vein, what with all the stuff going down in our country right now, all the changes, all the uncertainty, with the downward spiral into socialism, and I wonder... Is there a point where I would take up arms in a violent revolt against my government?

Sometimes I wonder the same thing. One of my favorite quotes is from the Declaration of Independance.

"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."

When is our government going to be considered "destructive" enough. When the succeed in making a socialist third world backwater. Because sometimes it seems that is where we are headed. When do we replace the current government with one of the people. The government we have hasn't been for the people in a long time. They are the puppets of the special interests and the big money. Just try to unseat a incumbant Senator. They have to really screww up and the opponent has to have one hell of a war chest.

More from skip:

As Second Amendment activists we understand that the Second Amendment is the one right that protects all others, and when it is gone, then nothing remains to protect our freedom. As I travel around the country on behalf of the Second Amendment March, I speak with various people of all different backgrounds, and no matter where I'm at, someone always makes this statement: "They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead hands!" Obviously, that's the statement made famous by Charleton Heston. Somehow, it sounded more potent when he said it.

Nonetheless, people are thinking it and people are saying it. Is it all talk? Some say yes, but I don't think so. I believe there is a growing number of citizens out there who are willing to give up their lives to regain the next generation of freedom. Case in point, I was doing a radio interview several months back and I was grilled for two hours by callers. They were upset with me because I was organizing a Second Amendment March on Washington DC. Their biggest complaint? "Why are you marching on Washington DC "without" guns?"

I tried to explain to them that we weren't at that point yet, that there was still hope for the ballot box, but they would have no part of it. In their minds, we were already at the point of no return. Are they right? History will some day tell the whole story. But I pray to God they are wrong. But, just in case, I think it's time all of us started thinking long and hard over the questions: "At what point are you willing to take up arms against a tyrannical government? Where is the point of no return?”

He sure knows how to give us plenty to think about. Right now, we are in the soapbox stage. It's time to find honest people to run for office and stand with them. We have just a little over a year till the next election. I know there are people out there that would serve with honor and distinction. We need to find them and get them elected. That takes us up to the Ballot box. We need to vote.And we need to vote for people that belive that the Constitution means what it says. Not some liberal defenition of what they want it to mean for their own purposes.

It doesn't help that we have the most anti-gun administration ever elected. David Codrea gave us this:

Barr calls UN gun treaty 'perfect storm'

October 26, 10:09 AMGun Rights ExaminerDavid Codrea

Former Georgia congressman Bob Barr says international gun controllers "are now on the brink of success." He's referring to the Arms Trade Treaty endorsed earlier this month by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

"It was not always thus," Barr writes. From “'Perfect Storm' For UN Gun Control Agenda":

"In one of his first public addresses after being sworn in as undersecretary, [John] Bolton delivered the opening statement for the United States at the UN arms conference on July 9, 2001. His blunt words shocked many of the delegates present. The message he delivered made crystal clear, with reference to our constitutionally-guaranteed “right to keep and bear arms,” that the US would not be a party to any international effort that would directly or indirectly infringe that fundamental right."

"We have a president, a secretary of state, and an undersecretary philosophically in synch with the UN... Clinton made not even passing or indirect reference to the Constitution, much less the Second Amendment; a position so clearly and forcefully employed by Bolton when defending our interests against the international “community.”"

Hillary Clinton's State Department reanimates global arms treaty

No sooner do we get done talking about one international "gun control" effort than another resurrects itself, or I should say, is dug up by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. From Reuters:

The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

Here's the State Department press release. It contains a caveat:

As long as that Conference operates under the rule of consensus decision-making needed to ensure that all countries can be held to standards that will actually improve the global situation by denying arms to those who would abuse them, the United States will actively support the negotiations.

The rabid gungrabbers at Oxfam International don't like the idea of consensus one bit. Of course, if they supported choice, they wouldn't be rabid gungrabbers:

Governments must resist any US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause.

Hillary wants the U.S. to endorse and ratify this treaty. The Useless Nations wants control of our country and Clinton the TRAITOR wants to give it to them. The only thing stopping it right now is the required 2/3 majority vote in the Senete. There are those that would vote for it. And there are those that know that a vote for something like this is sure death for their politicak careers.

David wrote years ago:

"The Bill of Rights is the benchmark of freedom. Its authors were the innovators, pioneers and leaders in mankind's quest for liberty. Heeding their wisdom made our nation a beacon to the rest of the world, "the shining city on the hill." Disregarding it, trying to emulate the rest of the world, is the downward path to misery. Our system requires consent of the governed, not consent of the masters. Our "progun" leaders, consorting with CEOs, politicians and diplomats, need to understand this, along with our resolve to defy standardizing rights endowed by our Creator to a global norm".

We are supposed to be the "Beacon" to the rest of the world. They are supossed to want to be free like we are. What happened along the way that we are willing to give up our freedom?

Even Obama is getting in on it.

IANSA is the official coordinator of non-governmental organizations’ involvement in the UN small arms process. Its sources of funding include the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and George Soros’ Open Society Institute.

It's director, Rebecca Peters, isn't satisfied with just regulating guns:

She also raised the gun prohibition specter explicitly, recommending the outright prohibition of semi-automatic and automatic rifles and declaring that “(M)any States already prohibit the civilian possession of light weapons, and this should be recognised in the paragraph devoted to light weapons control.”

So far, it looks like the UN Protocol has stalled. For now. If there's one thing we've learned from the gun grabbers, it's they're like salivating weasels trying to get into a chicken coop. If one entry is blocked, they'll try to nose out another.

Which is why Barack Obama's pledge on Thursday during his Mexican trip to...well here. I'll let The Washington Post tell you:

Obama announced that he will push the U.S. Senate to ratify an inter-American arms-trafficking treaty.

Mexico groups urges new US assault weapons ban":

The United States should reinstate a Clinton-era ban on assault weapons to prevent such guns from reaching Mexican drug cartels, former officials from both countries said in a report released Tuesday...

"Improving our efforts ... will weaken the drug cartels and disrupt their illegal activities, and make it easier ultimately to dismantle and destroy them," said Robert Bonner, co-chairman of the group and former head of both the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and Customs and Border Protection agency.

OK, so what about Bonner's Super Friends group, the "Binational Task Force on the United States-Mexico Border"? They're part of The Pacific Council on International Policy.

The principal cause of worsening security conditions is a massive, illegal trade in drugs and arms. The U.S. has traditionally emphasized the former, whereas Mexican authorities have focused on stopping the southward flow of high-powered automatic weapons and ammunition. In reality, this two-way flow of contraband is mutually reinforcing, as drug traffickers need guns to protect their illegal trade and criminal networks are among the main purchasers of arms and ammunition in the border region...

Well, there you have it—they trip right out of the starting gate. No "high-powered automatic weapons" were involved in the Clinton gun ban. That people think they were is a calculated lie used to deceive them into supporting a ban on semiautomatic firearms.

Gee, globalists spreading lies to enact gun bans. And the "Authorized Journalist" establishment media is acting as their press agent.

Imagine that.

Why would you assume anyone who wants to see you disarmed is your friend? And why would you assume anyone who has to lie to accomplish this end is not your enemy?

People will say "it can't happen here". Don't be so sure. The people of Austrailia turned in all of their weapons after the government outlawed them. There are a lot of gun owners in this country that would do the same thing. There are so many sheep in this country, blindly listening to the government that they will do what ever they are told. People tell me I'm paranoid. I'm not. The government may outlaw guns, but that doesn't mean I will have any to turn in. Gee officer, they were stolen last night while we were out. If it can happen in the UK and Austrailia, why take a chance it can't happen here. Anyone that doesn't know by now that all politicians are liars are just deluding themselves. They will say anything to get and maintain their power. One example close to home, our own Senator Harkin. He spouts how he's a hunter and will protect our right to hunt. Excuse me Senator, I have read the Constitution and the word "hunting" is not in there. He votes for every gun control bill that comes along. Politicians may lie, but voting records don't. Yet, he keeps getting re-elected every time. I thought the people in Iowa were smarter than that.

Special thanks to Skip Coryell and David Codrea.

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Meet Dave Funk, candidate for the district 3 seat in the U.S. Congress.

Dear Fellow Iowan:

I am running for Congress because I believe in a better way for the 3rd District. I have fresh ideas and I have both the energy and resolve to bring common sense policies back to Iowa.

Like many of you, I have worked my way up toward the American dream. I have saved and sacrificed to build the best life I can for my young family, including four-year-old twins. I know what it means to be fiscally responsible. That’s why I oppose our tax money being used for government overspending and big bailouts.

As parents, my wife and I know the challenges we all face with health care, quality education, and concerns about national security. We worry about the family budget, daycare, and trying to save. That’s why I support education, health care, and financial options that allow families to choose what is right for them, instead of government imposed programs that offer no choices.

Come and join us on October 31st at the Waveland Cafe across from the fairgrounds on E. 30th St. From 10 am to 1 pm, Dave will be answering questions and just meeting the people that re will be representing. Dave is a former military and commercial pilot, Father of twins, and just generally a nice guy. I am proud to be one of the sponsors of this event.

A short word about the sponsors.

Iowa Carry, a rights group dedicated to changing the weapons laws in the state of Iowa.

The Second Amendment March, A nationwide Organization bringing the abridgement of our rights to public view.

Come out and meet everyone. Waveland Cafe has some of the best food and coffee around.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Barack Obama and the CIA: why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?

Gerald Warner is an author, broadcaster, columnist and polemical commentator who writes about politics, religion, history, culture and society in general.

If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people – not even Jimmy Carter.

Hard to belive isn't it. He's rapidly replacing Jimmy "the peanut" Carter as the worst president in the history of our nation.

Obama’s problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens. He has never abandoned the campaign trail.

The campaigning has never stopped.

That is why he opened Pandora’s Box by publishing the Justice Department’s legal opinions on waterboarding and other hardline interrogation techniques. He cynically subordinated the national interest to his partisan desire to embarrass the Republicans. Then he had to rush to Langley, Virginia to try to reassure a demoralised CIA that had just discovered the President of the United States was an even more formidable foe than al-Qaeda.

“Don’t be discouraged by what’s happened the last few weeks,” he told intelligence officers. Is he kidding? Thanks to him, al-Qaeda knows the private interrogation techniques available to the US intelligence agencies and can train its operatives to withstand them – or would do so, if they had not already been outlawed.

So, next time a senior al-Qaeda hood is captured, all the CIA can do is ask him nicely if he would care to reveal when a major population centre is due to be hit by a terror spectacular, or which American city is about to be irradiated by a dirty bomb. Your view of this situation will be dictated by one simple criterion: whether or not you watched the people jumping from the twin towers.

Every time I remember those images, my hatred of terrorists is reinforced.

Obama promised his CIA audience that nobody would be prosecuted for past actions. That has already been contradicted by leftist groups with a revanchist ambition to put Republicans, headed if possible by Condoleezza Rice, in the dock. Talk about playing party politics with national security. Martin Scheinin, the United Nations special investigator for human rights, claims that senior figures, including former vice president Dick Cheney, could face prosecution overseas. Ponder that – once you have got over the difficulty of locating the United Nations and human rights within the same dimension.

When are we as a nation going to grow some balls and throw that bunch of dictators and thugs out of our country. Let them move to North Korea or Iran. That would be a good place for them.

President Pantywaist Obama should have thought twice before sitting down to play poker with Dick Cheney. The former vice president believes documents have been selectively published and that releasing more will prove how effective the interrogation techniques were. Under Dubya’s administration, there was no further atrocity on American soil after 9/11.

President Pantywaist’s recent world tour, cosying up to all the bad guys, excited the ambitions of America’s enemies. Here, they realised, is a sucker they can really take to the cleaners. His only enemies are fellow Americans. Which prompts the question: why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?

Why is that? Maybe it's the power. He's doing his best to shove his socialist/communist agenda down our throats. When the President pals around with the likes of American terrorist Bill Ayers, who needs enemies.

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

DHS strips Arizona sheriff of authority to patrol for illegal immigrants

Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio says he will continue his controversial "crime suppression operations" despite a Department of Homeland Security decision to strip him of authority to arrest suspected illegal immigrants based solely on their immigration status, the East Valley Tribune reports.

“It’s all politics,” says Arpaio, sheriff of Maricopa County.

Arpaio will still have the power to check the immigration status of people booked by his officers, but not the authority to conduct street patrols looking for illegal immigrants.

His “crime suppression operations” are saturation patrols in designated areas where deputies would find illegal immigrants by stopping them for traffic infractions and minor violations, the paper says.

The department of Justice and other federal agencies are investigating the sheriff’s office on accusations of racial profiling during the operations, the paper says.

Arpaio said he will be able to still conduct the crime sweeps under state human smuggling laws and an obscure federal law that allows local police to arrest illegal immigrants.

A spokesman for the Phoenix office of ICE declined to comment until after pending agreements with the country are signed.

(Photo by Ralph Freso, East Valley Tribune, AP)

Posted by Doug Stanglin at 09:59 AM/ET, October 07, 2009 in Crime, Politics, Washington

That's right - go after the one guy that's trying to stop this illegal immigration. Guess he doesn't fit into the liberal policies of the government these days.

And just what in the hell makes Napolitano qualified to run DHS. According to her and her minions people like me are nothing but terrorists. Just because I served my country and belive the Constitution means what it says.

Friday, October 2, 2009

Second Amendment Always Under Attack

In my post about McDonald v. Chicago there was some good discussion about what it means and about the 2nd Amendment in general. One of the questions was about the constant attack on our right to bear arms. Here is a list of legislation and the people behind it. Our rights are never safe from those that would control us. It's always the same ones introducing this legislation. Our own wonderful Senator Harkin said he woulod ban every handgun in the country. Yet he claims to support Hunters. Excuse me Tommy, I've read the constitution and the word hunting is not in there. He's never seen a antigun bill he didn't like.

U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), the ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, who calls himself "a strong supporter of the war against international terrorism, both at home and abroad," introduced H.R. 2159, calling it the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009."

Given the bill's title, one might think that it's intended to affect terrorists. However, King and the bill's co-sponsors—Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), Mike Castle (R-Del.), Jim Moran (D-Va.), Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), Mark Kirk (D-Ill.), and Chris Smith (R-N.J.)—are extreme gun control supporters. Rather than being aimed at terrorists, H.R. 2159 is intended to give the executive branch arbitrary, unaccountable power to stop loyal Americans from acquiring firearms. Here's how:

H.R. 2159 would give the attorney general "the authority to deny the sale, delivery, or transfer of a firearm or the issuance of a firearms or explosives license or permit to dangerous terrorists. . . . if the Attorney General determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism."

H.R. 2159 would not, however, impose requirements or limits on the kind of information an attorney general could use to make such a determination, nor establish a standard for "appropriate suspicion." It instead proposes that "any information which the Attorney General relied on for this determination may be withheld from the applicant if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security."

The scheme that H.R. 2159 proposes is unprecedented. Since 1968, federal law has established guidelines for all categories of persons prohibited from receiving and possessing firearms, and since 1994 has expressly protected a prohibited person's right to be told why he is prohibited. H.R. 2159 would establish no such standards, would provide no such protection, and would allow an attorney general to deny gun purchases based upon secret information, or no information whatsoever.

H.R. 2159's potential for abuse should be apparent. A recent Department of Justice report1 states that the FBI's terrorist watchlist doesn't include certain known terrorists, yet includes people who are not terrorists, the latter an on-going problem widely reported upon by the media and the American Civil Liberties Union.2 Even Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), perhaps the most widely recognized member of Congress, was placed on the list several years ago. Also, H.R. 2159 follows a disturbing Department of Homeland Security report characterizing gun owners and military veterans as "rightwing extremists,"3 and Attorney General Eric Holder's statements advocating new gun prohibitions and other restrictions.

H.R. 2159 isn't about making America safe from terrorists; it's about giving the federal government new, arbitrary authority to prohibit loyal Americans from exercising their constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms. Cloaking it in terms of "national security" doesn't change that fact.

Imagine that, constitutional guarantees stripped on suspicion. Being debated in our statehouse today.

And this real winner from the convicted felon Bobby Rush of Chicago.

HR 45 introduced into the House. This is the Blair Holt Fiirearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009.

Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm - any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless:

-It is registered -You are fingerprinted -You supply a current Driver's License -You supply your Social Security # -You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing -Each update - change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25 - Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail.. -There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a&nb sp;child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18.

-They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison.

H.R. 1022, Going Beyond The Infamous Clinton Gun Ban

Introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), H.R. 1022 would revive the discredited Clinton Gun Ban of 1994. Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004 for multiple reasons, including the fact that studies by the Congressional Research Service, congressionally-mandated studies, and studies by state and local law enforcement agencies showed that guns affected by the ban had been used in only a minute percentage of crime, before and after the ban was imposed.

Reauthorizing the Clinton ban would be bad enough. The guns that it temporarily banned--very widely used for target shooting, hunting and home protection--are still used in only a small percentage of crime. But McCarthy`s "other purposes" would make matters even worse. H.R. 1022 would ban every gun banned by the Clinton ban, plus millions more guns.

H.R. 96, Aiming At Registering Gun Owners And Putting Gun Shows Out Of Business

Introduced by Rep. Michael Castle (R-Del.), the "Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2007"imposes bureaucratic restrictions aimed at shutting down gun shows--without fixing real problems of the National Instant Check System (NICS). Despite changes from the Lautenberg juvenile justice amendment of 1999 that it is based on, this bill fails to address gun owners` most significant concerns--and in several areas is even more restrictive than past attempts to regulate gun shows. H.R. 96 makes no real improvements to the NICS system while creating gun owner registration, massive new government red tape and allows harassment of gun show organizers vendors and attendees

S. 77, The Firearms Dealer Harassment Act

Sen. Charles Schumer, (D-N.Y.) has introduced S. 77, the "Anti-Gun Trafficking Penalties Enhancement Act of 2007." A more accurate title would be the "Firearms Dealer Harassment Act." Here`s why:

First, S.77 would require that confidential Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) records on firearms traces be turned over--on demand--to any government entity, for any purpose. (Currently, information from firearms traces can only be used in bona fide criminal investigations by law enforcement agencies.)

S. 77 would require that these records be made available to any government agency for any reason, or for no stated reason whatsoever, without any justification or respect for the privacy rights of law-abiding gun owners.

S. 77 would also unleash the federal government to harass FFL holders at will, for any reason, as often as it chooses.

Finally--and perhaps most ominously--S. 77 would define certain firearm violations as "racketeering activity" under the "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act" (RICO), allowing massive criminal penalties and civil suits.

H.R. 256, Banning Gun Possession By Law-Abiding Young Adults

Introduced by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, (D-Texas), H.R. 256 seeks to ban handgun possession by those under the age of 21. This, of course, would include thousands of young people who are currently serving in our armed forces. The bill would also ban the possession of a semi-automatic firearm described as an "assault weapon," but it fails to provide any definition of what firearms would be covered under that section of the legislation. Additionally, it bans possession of "large capacity feeding devices" by those under 21.

In addition to these restrictions of the rights of young Americans, the bill also imposes new regulations on firearms importers, manufacturers and dealers, requiring that a gun storage device be included with each sale, regardless of the appropriateness or need for such a device by the buyer. It provides penalties of up to a $10,000 fine for each infraction.

H.R. 203, Allowing Arbitrary Seizure of Firearms

Introduced by Rep. Steven Rothman, (D-N.J.) H.R. 203 will involve the federal government in gun confiscations and override state law regulating gun possession when misdemeanor charges are filed in domestic abuse cases. The legislation will block federal grant money, money vital for law enforcement operations, to any jurisdiction that does not adopt the firearms seizure standards set in H.R. 203.

Under those standards, H.R. 203 grants police authority to confiscate firearms, without conviction of even misdemeanor charges, based solely on their belief that domestic abuse has occurred. This authority is extended to "any weapon," which could allow police to seize anything that could be so used. This broad expansion of police powers, without the action of a court or the opportunity for the accused to defend him-self or her-self in court, is unprecedented and unnecessary. The bill also provides federal authority for a court to order seizure of "any weapon" as a part of an order of protection, also granting broad search authority.

The expansion of government confiscation powers provided by H.R. 203, in the absence of any conviction, is an improper abuse of government power. That those confiscations can be made based on a simple allegation, without any judicial action, is appallingly excessive.

H.R. 1168, Giving Foreign Courts Authority Over The Rights Of Americans

Introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) H.R. 1168 seeks to extend the firearm and ammunition prohibitions applicable to convicted felons to those convicted in a foreign court. This would allow deprivation of Second Amendment rights based on convictions in foreign courts, where defendants often do not have the same protections against abuse and intimidation that the accused do in the U.S. These would include convictions for conduct domestic law punishes far less severely or not at all. For instance, convictions for religious proselytizing under Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, or for speaking out politically against repressive regimes, would prohibit firearms ownership. Under this bill, people "convicted" for exercising their religion, or undertaking entrepreneurial activities, would be disarmed in America.

Many thanks to the NRA and Iowa Carry Inc. This is also posted on

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

McDonald, et al. v. City of Chicago

Looks like the SCOTUS is finally going to rule on Chicago's unconstitutional ban on self defense.

Docket: 08-1521

Title: McDonald, et al. v. City of Chicago

Issue: Whether the Second Amendment is incorporated into the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so as to be applicable to the States, thereby invalidating ordinances prohibiting possession of handguns in the home.

Opinion below (7th Circuit)

Petition for certiorari (08-1521)

Brief in opposition

Petitioner’s reply (08-1521)

Brief amicus curiae of Arms Keepers

Brief amici curiae of Texas, et al

Brief amicus curiae of National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc.

Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rights Union

Brief amici curiae of Institute for Justice, and Cato Institute

Brief amicus curiae of California

Brief amici curiae of Gun Owners of America, Inc.,et al.

Brief amici curiae of Constitutional Law Professors

Maybe eventually, the law abiding citizens will be able to walk down the street without being afraid of the criminals. One could hope. It's time somebody put "King Dick" and the rest of the Chicago thugs in their place. The common people aren't allowed to defend themselves, yet the thuggery in charge has platoons of armed body guards. It's time to make the criminals afraid for a change. They refuse to put them in jail, so maybe it's time to put a few in the ground.

Monday, September 28, 2009

Czar Wars

Posted 09/25/2009 07:16 PM ET

Politics: In yet another vote against transparency, the Senate killed an amendment imposing legislative oversight on unconfirmed White House officials. Shouldn't we know who they are and what they're doing?

Green czar Van Jones is gone, forced to leave the administration after Fox News and the conservative blogosphere revealed his past as a self-avowed communist. Jones had issues that some argue should have been discussed in confirmation hearings that never occurred before he assumed his position.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, would have liked to have learned of Jones' communist links and more before this man, who believes that white America deliberately pours its pollution into minority communities and who seeks redistribution of wealth in the name of environmental justice, assumed a position of some power.

So Collins on Thursday submitted an amendment to an Interior Department bill that would withhold funding for the creation of any new, unconfirmed czar positions until the administration allows nominees to be questioned by Congress. Once confirmed, all czars would be required to produce every two years a detailed "public, written report" of their actions and involvement in the creation of policy, rules and regulations.

Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois was not amused by the threat of sunlight, calling it an attack by "czar watchers." He noted that George W. Bush and other presidents had czars, too, and used a legislative move to kill the measure in committee.

In unprecedented fashion, these unaccountable czars have been given enormous power to steer policy in directions that the American people did not vote for. They threaten our basic freedoms.

Case in point: Diversity czar Mark Lloyd admires Venezuelan thug Hugo Chavez and his pursuit of a Marxist redistributive agenda. Lloyd has praised Chavez's "incredible revolution" and the way he has taken "very seriously the media in his country" by imposing limits on cable TV and revoking the licenses of more than 200 radio stations that insufficiently toed the party line.

Lloyd says that "unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays and other people in those positions, we will not change the problem. But we're in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power."

Lloyd would impose the Fairness Doctrine by stealth, using concepts such as "ownership diversity" and "localism" to destroy talk radio and cable news, which he sees as obstructions to the radical agenda he supports.

Americans elect presidents and congressmen to represent them, not czars to run their lives. Presidential appointees should be required to come before the Senate. The people have a right to know.

I couldn't agree more. Why are we allowing people with no accountability have that much power. It seems like everyone Obama knows is some king of left wingnut wack job. One of them did go before the Senate, And was put through with flying colors. This is the wacko that thinks Bambi should be able to sue deer hunters. Look at Van Jones, avowed communist and criminal. Given a position of power until people found our what he was. Who started all of this car crap anyway. We need to demand that these people be accountable to We The People. Without that, more of our rights could dissapear.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Report says Philly VA home endangered vets

The Associated Press

Posted : Saturday Sep 19, 2009 16:32:25 EDT

PITTSBURGH — An inspection at a Veterans Affairs nursing home in Philadelphia last year found conditions endangering the welfare of residents, a Pittsburgh newspaper reported Saturday.

Inspectors found dried blood and feeding tubes on the floors, and one patient's leg had to be amputated after maggots were seen falling from his foot, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review said, citing a report obtained through a federal Freedom of Information Act request.

The report by the Wisconsin-based Long Term Care Institute concluded that the facility, the bed count of which has been cut from 240 to 120, "failed to provide a sanitary and safe environment for their residents." It cites substandard treatment of wound care and "multiple concerns regarding nursing competencies."

"There was a significant failure to promote and protect their residents' rights to autonomy and to be treated with respect and dignity," the report concluded.

VA spokesman Dale Warman told the paper in an e-mail that many steps had been taken to improve care. A corrective action plan updated on June 29 including the hiring of consultants and additional staff and remedial training and retraining programs for staff, officials said.

The report said no action was taken on one unnamed veteran, even though his toes had turned black, until maggots were observed "falling out of the resident's foot," at which point an amputation was ordered. One inspector reported seeing a nurse use the wrong medication despite a week-old order from a physician changing the prescription, the report said.

Some patients had substantial weight loss, including one veteran who lost 51 pounds for unknown reasons.

"The potential for dehydration for these residents presents immediate jeopardy," the report said.

An internal investigation was triggered three months before the report was issued when David Allen, 56, a mute and disabled Vietnam veteran, choked to death on solid food although he was supposed to be on a soft-food diet.

His death was not mentioned in the report, but the VA said in a statement that the contracts of two agency nurses were terminated and other staff members were given additional training on swallowing difficulties "as well as the effects of behavioral medications."

  Why in the hell are we letting our veteran be trated like this. First it was Walter Reed, not it's the vetrans home in Philly. There is absolutly no excuse for this. Who ever is in charge needs to be shot. Not fatally, just wounded and left there to recive his care. These are the people that gave all they had to defend our country. This needs to be investigated and someone needs to loose their job, someone high up. If the staff doesn't want to work with our aging vets, fine. Quit and find a better job. Then the home can hire someone that cares.
  The VA system has it's flaws, but it's still the best care our veterans can get. For some, it's the only care they can get. Mr. President, do you see what we are doing to the defenders of our country. These vets are the ones that served before you and I were even born. People that served in hell holes like Omaha Beach, Iwo Jima and Korea. Crushing those that would destroy our way of life. They deserve our respect and the finest care we can give them. If this is what government health care is going to look like for the masses, then maybe everyone in the country should get a good look.

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Where has my country gone?

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, United States Declaration of Independence.

The ass holes in Washington need to get some history books and read up on a little war that took place 235 years ago. A bunch of shop keepers and farmers took on the world’s greatest super power and put them in their place. Think it can't happen again? Just remember, there are 80 million gun owners in this country. Most of them believe in the Constitution and believe it to be the law of the land. And a lot of them have had enough. It's about time to run all the posers and wannabe kings out of DC and take our country back to a place where the Constitution is the supreme law and our rights are again secure. Throw the U.N. out of this country and secure our borders. Pull all of our troops out of places like Germany and Japan. If they want to duke it out. Let them have at it. If Germany wants to invade France again, have a good time. If North Korea wants to take over South Korea, have a good time.

We put up with the invasion of our country because the bunch of crooks we have elected refuse to seal off our borders. There are over 30 million illegal aliens in the country and the number grows more every day. But as long as the government allows this to go on, their corporate sponsors will keep benefiting from the cheap labor. It's time to start locking up the CEO's and every other HR executive and shop Forman that allows this to go on. If we start holding the people in charge responsible, the illegals will not be able to find work and they will go back to where ever it is they came from. We could take all of the troops we have spread across the world and our borders would be secure.

Some history. On Saturday, 12 August 1961, the leaders of the GDR attended a garden party at a government guesthouse in Döllnsee, in a wooded area to the north of East Berlin, at which time Ulbricht signed the order to close the border and erect a wall.

At midnight, the police and units of the East German army began to close the border and by Sunday morning, 13 August 1961, the border with West Berlin was closed. East German troops and workers had begun to tear up streets running alongside the border to make them impassable to most vehicles, and to install barbed wire entanglements and fences along the 156 km (97 miles) around the three western sectors and the 43 km (27 miles) which actually divided West and East Berlin.

Don’t tell me our borders can’t be secured. If the communists 48 years ago could do it, why can’t we, with all our manpower and technology do the same thing? We shouldn’t be apologizing to one of the most corrupt governments in the world. We should be rounding up their citizens that seem to be lost and help them home. The problem they have in Mexico with the drug lord is their problem. It is our fault that the drug lords have automatic weapons. It’s our fault because our own government is the biggest arms dealer in the world. We ship hundreds of thousand full automatic M16s to Mexico for their army and they end up in the hands of corrupt politicians that sell them to the drug lords. The other source for their arms is the overseas black market. You can go to the Middle East and buy a full auto AK47 for $200.00. They smuggle those into the country by the container full. Obama going to Mexico and making some treaty that is going to infringe on my rights is a load of BULLSHIT. I’m to blame for Mexico’s problems because I’m a re-loader? Or because I’m a gun owner. Hey Mr. President, Your dead buddy Kennedy has killed more people that all the guns I have ever owned. I’m not the criminal. Most of the criminals I have ever met live in Washington DC. They are called politicians. That’s how we spell criminal in fly over country. You know that place you have to go every few years to appease the peasants. Someplace you stay away from as much as possible. Here in the heart land where we still believe in law and order and The Constitution. At least most of us do. That would be the ones that didn’t drink the kool-aide you were serving up. Those of us that still think for them aren’t buying the communist claptrap you’re peddling. Some of us are smarter than that.

Here’s a novel idea Mr. President. Instead of running all over the world and kissing the ass of every tyrant and despot you can find, why you don’t stay home and act like the leader of the greatest country in the world. Right now, the only place we need to be involved is Afghanistan. We need to be there until we root out and kill every terrorist we can find. Fill those smart bombs full of napalm and fly them right down the rat holes to the rats. You fill enough holes in those mountains with burning gas and I guarantee that you will get rid of Bin Laden and a whole bunch of his buddies. And if you think we are going to have world peace? Guess again. As long as there are two people in this world, they will find something to fight about. So let all of those radicals over there in that hell hole kill each other off. As long as they are doing that, they aren’t killing Americans.

Also posted at

Monday, September 14, 2009

Gun Owners Tell Mayors The Truth About "Mayors Against Illegal Guns"

When New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino--both virulently anti-gun mayors--formed a new anti-gun group a few years ago, they envisioned the creation of a powerful force to lobby for new gun control laws. But in assembling their coalition, they failed to take two important things into account: first, the response of gun owners to this new threat, and second, that many mayors would not take kindly to being misled regarding the real purpose of Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG.) Over the past few years, even as they continue to claim they are only concerned with “illegal” guns, MAIG has worked to impose new restrictions on law-abiding gun owners by regulating guns shows, supporting reckless lawsuits against the firearm industry, and opposing the right of self-defense for law-abiding Americans with carry permits. Mayor Bloomberg, who sets the agenda for this radical group, is dedicated to the passage of highly restrictive gun laws. In an appearance on “Meet the Press,” Bloomberg announced that he would raise money to counter the influence of the NRA.

There’s a good reason people call Bloomberg “Bloomingidiot” He’s a whack job. He’s running NYC into the ground and it seems like he want’s to take other cities with him. Our own Mayor, the Hon. Frank Cownie has fallen for bloomys crap. All law abiding citizens should write and call the Mayor and ask him to resign from this obviously anti-freedom organization. Bloomberg doesn’t want to control crime. He want’s to control guns and the honest people. If crime was under control he wouldn’t have that issue to put in front of the people. And why do the people of NYC keep re-electing this fool anyway?

A number of mayors have provided the same reason for leaving the group: MAIG was not what they represented themselves to be. In her letter of resignation, Mayor Patricia Shontz (R) of Madeira Beach, Florida wrote, “I am withdrawing because I believe the MAIG is attempting to erode all gun ownership, not just illegal guns. Additionally, I have learned that the MAIG may be working on issues which conflict with legal gun ownership.” She goes on to add, “It appears the MAIG has misrepresented itself to the Mayors of America and its citizens. This is gun control, not crime prevention.” Mayor Shontz’s concerns were echoed by Mayor Josh Nowotarski (D) of Mount Penn, Pennsylvania, who wrote, “I recently learned of the misrepresentations of the group and regret having joined in the first place.” These sentiments were shared by a number of other mayors who have removed their name from the MAIG list.

And yet, our Mayor has not resigned. Someone that is supposed to be for the people. We don’t have near the crime problem that they have in NYC. That’s because here in Des Moines a honest law abiding citizen can get a permit to carry a firearm. His continued membership in this anti-rights group is a affront to those of us that believe in personal freedom and responsability. He’s showing us that he doesn’t care one bit for the people.

Bloomberg is well known for his antics in trying to sue gun manufacturers. The most regulated business in the country. His audacity is only second to his idiocy. He even want’s the State of New York to change their laws on term limits so he can be Mayor for life.

If your mayor is listed, contact the Mayor’s office and let them know the truth about MAIG and ask them to resign. If they say they are on the list in error, let them know they need to contact MAIG and have their name removed. If your mayor agrees that MAIG is not a group that he or she wants to belong to, encourage your mayor to resign and let NRA-ILA know that they have done so. Help your mayor make the right choice between protecting our Second Amendment rights or continuing to be associated with those who actively oppose and undermine your firearms freedom.

Hre’s how you can contact the Mayor.

675 Harwood Drive

Des Moines, IA 50312

Home Phone: (515) 255-3644

City Hall Phone: (515) 283-4944

Lets flood his e-mail and keep his secretary busy with the phone calls. It’s funny that the only other Mayor in Iowa is Cedar Rapids. Iowa City, that bastion of liberalism isn’t even participating.

Here’s where you can see all the current members, members that have quit, and Mayors listed as members that are not Mayors of the locations listed. The fun part is the member Mayors arrest and conviction section. It’s no wonder some of these Mayors don’t want to control criminals. They might end up in the same cell. That’s just too funny.

Pete the Penguin

Blog Archive