30 May 2010

Open Carry Push In Texas

Star Telegram

Gun-rights advocates pushing for open carry law in Texas

Posted Saturday, May. 22, 2010

By ANNA M. TINSLEY

atinsley@star-telegram.com

Texas is considered to have some of the most permissive gun laws in the nation, but gun-rights advocates are making it one of their top political targets because it is one of a handful of states that don't allow handguns to be carried openly.

"It's shocking that Texas, with its history of rugged individualism that the state symbolizes, doesn't allow open carry," said John Pierce, a co-founder of and spokesman for www.OpenCarry.org. If the Legislature doesn't approve an open-carry bill when it convenes in January, "then we'll see them in 2013," Pierce said, referring to that session of the Legislature.

Texans have been able to get licenses to carry concealed handguns in most places since 1995. Gun-rights advocates say it's time to let Texans pack their pistols in full public view as well.

Texas -- where it's still not unusual in some areas to see shotguns and rifles on gun racks in pickups -- is one of seven states -- the others are Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, New York, Oklahoma and South Carolina, plus Washington, D.C. -- without an open-carry law.

This month, Oklahoma lawmakers overwhelmingly approved an open-carry bill, only to have it vetoed by Democratic Gov. Brad Henry. The battle there continues as the House fell just short Thursday in a vote to override the veto. Legislators say they may try another override in the closing days of their session this week.

To Marsha McCartney, it doesn't matter what other states do. She doesn't want Texas to expand its gun laws.

"If you see someone with a holster on, are you just to assume this is a law-abiding person?" said McCartney, state president of the North Texas Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "Are you to assume this person is safe to be around your family? People don't know this.

"It's common sense thrown out a window."

The idea of open carry was discussed in the Texas Capitol in 2009 and is expected -- along with other measures to expand Texans' gun rights -- to come up again when lawmakers get back to work in January.

Days gone by?




In Texas, more than 65,000 people have signed an online petition asking Gov. Rick Perry and the Legislature to make Texas an open-carry state. Perry says he won't rule it out.

"The governor believes our concealed-carry law works for Texas and that a person ought to be able to carry their weapon with them anywhere in the state if they are licensed and have gone through the training," Perry's spokeswoman Allison Castle said. "He would be open to looking at any proposals lawmakers bring to the table regarding open carry. I suppose we've got what you could call a Texas open carry since you can hang your rifle in the window of your pickup truck."

More than a dozen states require a license for open carry -- Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Utah. Another dozen allow open carry but don't require licenses -- Alaska, Arizona, Indiana, Kentucky, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming, according to www.OpenCarry.org.

California allows open carry only in rural areas; the other 16 states are defined as open-carry friendly.

"This is a return to days gone by," McCartney said. "I don't live in a community where I want to see people with holsters. I think others probably feel the same way.

"Where are we going to draw this line? Or are we going to carry them everywhere?"

Legislative push

Pierce said he and other open-carry supporters will start talking to Texas lawmakers soon to see who might be interested in carrying an open-carry bill. In 2009, they focused on state Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Tomball, because she seemed the most receptive.

In the end, Riddle didn't carry the bill, nor did anyone else.

State Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, a former Arlington mayor pro tem, said he would consider voting for the open-carry proposal if it got to the House floor, which he said isn't likely. But that would mean that the proposal had significant support from lawmakers and gun-rights supporters in Texas.

But he said two other bills -- one that would let those who were older than 21 and had the right license to carry concealed handguns on college campuses and another to let licensees keep concealed handguns in their vehicles at work -- will likely get the bulk of attention next session. He said he would support those measures, both of which died during the 2009 legislative session.

Alice Tripp, a lobbyist for the Texas State Rifle Association, said Texans lost the right to carry handguns openly, except on their own property, in the 1870s.

"Fifteen years ago, when Texas finally passed their concealed-carry license, it was a major coup," Tripp said, adding that about 400,000 Texans now have a license to carry concealed handguns. "The license is a success."

While the rifle association is working on the measures for guns on campuses and at work, the group would support pro-gun legislation -- such as open carry -- if it got to the House or Senate floor.

'Open carry makes sense'

Texans who signed the petition say they support open carry for various reasons.

"I'm a firm, long time believer in my 2nd Amendment right to keep & bear arms! I hope & pray that the open carry law comes to be in the state of Texas & I urge the powers that be in Texas to make it a law," Tolbert L. Parfnell wrote on the petition.

John Daniels wrote, "Criminals will not rob armed citizens if they SEE the citizen is armed."

Jason W. Traynham wrote: "C'mon Gov. Perry, COYOTES are bad in Williamson County too. ... Open carry makes sense, most are carrying anyway either legal or otherwise."


29 May 2010

Six Flags Refuses Admission To Mom With Gun Tattoos




KSDK

NBC -- A 30-year-old mother of three said she was refused entrance into Six Flags Over Texas because of her tattoo.

Samantha Osborn, a Texas girl through-and-through, has two six-shooters surrounded by yellow roses tattooed on her chest.

"I got it because I love Texas," she said. "I thought of cowboys and six-shooters and the yellow rose of Texas."

But a Six Flags employee stopped her at the entrance gate when she and her husband, Matt, went to the Arlington amusement park to celebrate his birthday.

"We tried to enter, one employee grabbed me and said my chest tattoo was offensive and that I may not be allowed into the park," Osborn said. "I was flabbergasted."

She said the employee told her Six Flags was a family-friendly place.

Osborn told the employee she was the mother of three girls.

"She said it was as offensive as a swastika and that she would sell me a $5 shirt to cover myself up and that they didn't let people with swastikas into Six Flags, and that my tattoo condoned violence," Osborn said.

Six Flags' dress code says park management can deny customers entrance if their clothing is deemed inappropriate or vulgar.

The code does not mention tattoos.

The Osborns, determined to celebrate the birthday, eventually entered the park through another line without being bothered, but the damage had been done.

"It just soured the whole experience, and we left," Samantha Osborn said.

Osborn, who has several tattoos, said she has never been harassed about them.

Her husband's tattoos are much more visible than hers and cover about 70 percent of his body.

"I've never been denied access or even asked to cover up entering any public place, ever," he said.

Samantha Osborn complained to Six Flags about what she called unfair and discriminatory treatment.

She later received a letter of apology by e-mail from Cindi Brickett, Six Flags guest services supervisor.

"We are dedicated to providing a fun-filled day that goes beyond your expectations," the e-mail said. "On behalf of the entire management team, I sincerely apologize that we did not meet that goal and hope that you will not allow this experience to diminish your impression of our park."


Brickett also promised the employee would be dealt with appropriately.

"I received an e-mail, which wasn't a phone call. I would have really liked to speak to a person," Osborn said.

The Osborns said the experience left a sour taste in their mouths.

They don't plan on returning to Six Flags.


Robocop's Comment:

Ok, she looks a little rough. But here cool tattoos should not have even given that Six Flags employee a second look. I think we need to help prevent something like this from happening again. So for all of you civic minded folk, here is the contact information for Six Flags Texas to voice your concern.

Guest Relations at (817) 640-8900 x3139


or leave an online message on this FORM.

28 May 2010

MODERN CIVIL RIGHTS: COCKFIGHTING AND SAME-SEX PROMS

Ann Coulter

Watching TV this week, at first I thought Republican Senate nominee Rand Paul had flown a commercial jet into the World Trade Center. But then it turned out that he had only said there ought to be discussion about whether federal civil rights laws should be applied to private businesses.

This allowed the mainstream media to accuse Paul of being a racist. Twisting a conservative's words in order to accuse him of racism was evidently more urgent news than the fact that the attorney general of the United States admitted last week -- under oath in a congressional hearing -- that he had not read the 10-page Arizona law on illegal immigration, the very law he was noisily threatening to overturn.

And really, how could the U.S. attorney general have time to read a 10-page law when he's busy doing all the Sunday morning TV shows condemning it?

Eric Holder's astonishing admission was completely ignored by ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, The Associated Press, Time or Newsweek, according to Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center.

I just want to say: I think it's fantastic that the Democrats have finally come out against race discrimination. Any day now, maybe they'll come out for fighting the Cold War. Perhaps 100 years from now, they'll be ready to fight the war on terrorism or champion the rights of the unborn.

It would be a big help, though, if Democrats could support good causes when it mattered.

But as long as the media are so fascinated with the question of why anyone would want to "discuss" certain aspects of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, maybe they should ask Al Gore why his father was one of the leading opponents of the bill.

Or they could ask Bill Clinton, whose mentor, Sen. William Fulbright, actively supported segregation and also voted against the bill. Or they could talk to the only current member of the Senate to vote against it, Democrat Bob Byrd.

As with the 1957 and 1960 civil rights acts, it was Republicans who passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act by huge majorities. A distinctly smaller majority of Democrats voted for it.

In the Senate, for example, 82 percent of Republicans voted for the act, compared with only 66 percent of Democrats. In the House, 80 percent of Republicans supported the law, compared with only 63 percent of Democrats.

With even all Democrats coming aboard on opposition to race discrimination (and it only took them 45 years!) I think we can stipulate that everyone in America is opposed to discrimination against blacks.

Now let's talk about the "civil rights" lawsuits that are actually brought in modern America. Today's "civil rights" lawsuits have nothing to do with black Americans. Worse, blacks are used as props to benefit the Democrats' favored constituencies: feminists and trial lawyers.

Democratic political consultant Bob Shrum pioneered the technique, running ads against Republican Ellen Sauerbrey in the 1998 Maryland gubernatorial race, accusing her of having "a civil rights record to be ashamed of." To really drive the point home, Shrum's ads showed sad-looking black people in front of a mural of Africa.

Of course, if I were forced to appear in political ads for Bob Shrum, I'd be sad, too.

But the only "civil rights" bill that Sauerbrey opposed had nothing to do with blacks. It was a sexual harassment bill that was so silly that Democrats in the Maryland legislature helped kill it.

Similarly, the vast bulk of "civil rights" lawsuits today have nothing to do with race. Although plaintiffs will jam every possible allegation of discrimination in their complaints, in 2009, according to the website of the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, 65 percent of all civil rights claims brought had absolutely nothing to do with race discrimination.

These days, a typical federal "civil rights" case is the one brought this year by the Game Fowl Breeders Association in New Mexico claiming their "civil rights" have been violated by a state law banning cockfighting.

Another modern "civil rights" lawsuit charged that a McDonald's restaurant violated the Americans With Disabilities Act by hanging a bathroom mirror two inches too high for people in wheelchairs. The error was made when employees replaced the original mirror, which had been destroyed by vandals, with a shorter one.

The restaurant owner, Ron Piazza, corrected the problem as soon as it was brought to his attention, but he got sued anyway. Curiously, the plaintiffs had retained their McDonalds' receipts, allowing them to claim damages for 27 separate visits to the restaurant.

And of course there are all the lesbians shutting down high school proms across the country because they can't take their girlfriends to the dance as the Founding Fathers intended.

This year's graduating class at Itawamba Agricultural High School in rural Mississippi will never have a school senior prom because the ACLU brought a lawsuit on behalf of Constance McMillen demanding that she be allowed to bring her girlfriend and wear a tuxedo.

With cockfighting bans and heterosexual proms, Martin Luther King's work remains unfinished!

Half a century ago, Democrats beat up the Freedom Riders. Today the Democrats insult the Freedom Riders by comparing them to irritating lesbians, lawsuit-happy disabled persons and cockfighters.

The question is not whether the federal government should be telling private businesses they can't engage in race discrimination. The question is whether federal civil rights laws should prevent any discrimination other than race discrimination.


COPYRIGHT 2010 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106

26 May 2010

The Face Of The Enemy (La Cara de El Enemigo)




I think we are approaching a point for Round 2. This time we should not give shit up.


24 May 2010

Royal Douche Award 05.24.10




The Winner: President Felipe de Jesús Calderón Hinojosa of Mexico.

The REASON
: For coming to OUR country, talking smack about OUR laws that crack down on HIS people for sneaking into OUR country. For keeping Mexico a shit hole, thereby causing HIS people to sneak into OUR country. Funny thing is Mexico's own laws ban foreign interference into their affairs, yet his government interferes with OUR affair on a daily basis. In short, he is a hypocrite of the highest order. Senior Calderone, tu eres un douche royal.

RUNNER UP: Barrack Hussein Obama.



The Reason: Letting a foreign leader talk smack about one of our states on our land. He may not like Arizona's law, but Obama is supposed to represent us. How could he do that by letting world leaders into our soil to talk smack without putting said foreign leader in his place? The truth is that Obama DOES NOT REPRESENT US, in thought or deed. For this, and countless other reasons, Obama is a Royal Douche.

23 May 2010

Calderon Go Back To Mexico!

Washington Times


Mexico's President Felipe Calderon ought to know a lot about illegal immigrant abuse. His country has one of the worst migrant human-rights records in the world.

During his state visit last week, Mr. Calderon repeatedly - and with support and encouragement from the White House and congressional Democrats - made his opinions known on a variety of American domestic issues, including immigration and gun control. He took particular aim at Arizona's new law concerning illegal aliens, absurdly describing it as "violating the human rights of all people."

Criticism from Mexico on immigration issues is nothing new, but rarely has it been so bold, and such salvos have never been launched from U.S. soil. It might be considered bad manners except for the fact that the foreign leader was promoting President Obama's domestic agenda.

Boiled down in simplest terms, it is hypocritical for Mr. Calderon to criticize Arizona's law when his country has similar or more severe statutes. Article 67 of Mexico's Population Law mirrors Arizona's law by requiring federal, state and municipal officials to "demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country, before attending to any [other] issues." Mexico's constitution gives the president authority to summarily expel both legal and illegal aliens without due process. When CNN's Wolf Blitzer confronted the Mexican president with some of these contradictions, Mr. Calderon was oblivious to the double standard. Asked about Mexico's policy for dealing with illegals sneaking in from Central America looking for work, Mr. Calderon quipped, "If somebody [does] that without permission, we send [them] back." If only Mr. Obama had such enlightened views.

Illegals in Mexico are lucky if deportation is all that happens to them. An April 2010 report from Amnesty International entitled "Invisible Victims: Migrants on the Move in Mexico" called the trip from Central America to the border with the United States "one of the most dangerous in the world." According to Amnesty researcher Rupert Knox, "Migrants in Mexico are facing a major human-rights crisis leaving them with virtually no access to justice, fearing reprisals and deportation if they complain of abuses." The report says that "Mexico's irregular migrants are condemned to a life on the margins, vulnerable to exploitation by criminal gangs and corrupt officials and largely ignored by many of those in authority who should be protecting them from human-rights abuses." Common abuses committed by Mexican officials include extortion, excessive use of force and violence against women. Arizona is a paradise by comparison.

Mr. Calderon's government recently issued a travel advisory about the "dangers" Mexicans might face in Arizona, but being there is much safer than staying home. In February, the State Department issued a travel advisory regarding Mexico that noted drug gang conflicts resembling "small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades." The circular also warns against robbery, kidnapping and other relatively common crimes. Meanwhile, gang-related beheadings are virtually unknown in Arizona, which is more than Mr. Calderon can claim for his own country.

America doesn't need self-righteous lectures from officials from the developing world. Mexico has its own problems, including pervasive violence, openly armed drug cartels, pollution, widespread institutional corruption and lack of economic opportunity. If Mexicans are flooding north over our border, it is for many very good reasons. Mr. Calderon should stick to trying to fix his own basket-case country, if he can.


Here is a very good retort to Calderon's hypocritical speech:

21 May 2010

Washington's New Gun Rules Shift Constitutional Debate

Wall Street Journal

By GARY FIELDS




WASHINGTON—Mark Snyder, an amateur biathlete, wanted to buy a .22-caliber bolt-action rifle for target shooting and figured the process would take about a week. After nearly six weeks, six visits to police departments and $300 in fees, he secured his rifle.

"I was not expecting a free ride," said Mr. Snyder, 45, "but this is an obstacle course they put in place."

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's 32-year ban on handguns in 2008, a victory for the gun-rights lobby that seemed to promise a more permissive era in America's long tussle over gun ownership. Since then, the city has crafted rules that are proving a new, powerful deterrent to residents who want to buy firearms.

Legal gun owners must be registered by the city, a red flag for many in the gun-rights community concerned that registration lists could be used to confiscate firearms. The District limits the number of bullets a gun can hold and the type of firearm residents can buy. It requires that by next year manufacturers sell guns equipped with a special identification technology—one that hasn't yet been adopted by the industry.





The Supreme Court is now deliberating a case challenging handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park, Ill., which are similar to the former ban in Washington, D.C., and is widely expected to side with gun-rights groups. The experience of Washington, D.C., however, suggests a pro-gun ruling by the Supreme Court doesn't mean an end to the matter. Here, the battle over whether residents can own guns has been replaced by a fresh debate over whether lawmakers can restrict legal gun ownership.

Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia's non-voting representative in Congress, is blunt about the point of the city's laws: discouraging gun ownership.

"To get them you have to go through a bureaucracy that makes it difficult," she said in an interview. Her constituents tend to oppose firearms because of gun violence, she said. "Nobody thinks we would have fewer shootings and fewer homicides if we had more relaxed gun laws."

Kenneth Barnes, 65, became a D.C. gun-law activist after his son was shot to death in his clothing store in 2001. He supports the city's current gun law. "I have no issue with the right to bear arms," but the Supreme Court's decision gave the city the right to set gun laws for its citizens, he said. "What we're talking about is self determination."

In 2009, the first full year the law was in effect, homicides in the city dropped to 143 from 186 in 2008. The 2009 total was the lowest since 1966.

In its 5-4 decision in 2008, known as District of Columbia v. Heller, the court ruled that the Second Amendment includes an individual right to self-defense. In doing so, it struck down the city's 1976 ordinance that effectively banned possession of handguns. The ruling offered little advice on what level of regulation might be permissible, giving the city room to maneuver within the ruling's broad outlines.

One question now is what impact Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan might have on future gun cases. Her public record on gun rights is limited primarily to positions she held as a Clinton White House lawyer and as a clerk for the late Justice Thurgood Marshall. The National Rifle Association has said it has some concerns and will work with the Senate to formulate some "tough questions" for the nominee on gun rights. With the five-judge majority that ruled on Heller intact, Ms. Kagan's impact on gun rights cases could be limited in the near future.

Gun-control supporters say the District is acting within the Constitution, in that Heller didn't outlaw all gun control. "From our perspective, there's a broad range of gun-control steps that can be taken that would be constitutional post-Heller," said Chad Ramsey of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, said the city's new rules strike against the spirit of the Supreme Court's decision. "Can you go out and buy guns in D.C. and defend yourself as the Supreme Court said you should be able to? No. The citizens can't experience the freedom from a practical level. What good is winning it philosophically?"

In the months since the Heller decision through April, the city has registered 1,071 guns, including 756 handguns and 315 "long" guns, such as rifles. That's a rate of about 181 guns per 100,000 residents. Before the Supreme Court decision, the rate of registered guns in Washington was close to zero.

Across the U.S., federal law-enforcement agencies estimate the total number of guns is between 200 million and 350 million, which results in a rate between 65,000 to 114,000 guns per 100,000 people nationally. A 2006 survey by the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center found gun ownership in 34% of all homes.

Right now, the legal advantage lies with the District. In a federal District Court ruling in March, Judge Ricardo Urbina upheld the city's gun law, writing that the Supreme Court didn't rule gun registration "unconstitutional as a general matter." The judge concluded the city had the power to limit the kinds of firearms permissible and the size of ammunition magazines.

Gun-rights groups and several plaintiffs, including Mr. Snyder the biathlete, are appealing the ruling. Mr. Synder joined the lawsuit after calling the NRA to complain about the registration process. Stephen Halbrook, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, predicts the case will come back to the Supreme Court for a second review of District gun laws.

The battle in the District stands in contrast with other areas of the country where gun-rights advocates have been enjoying success. Last month, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed a law permitting residents 21 years and older to carry concealed weapons without permits. On April 19, armed protesters assembled in federal parks in Virginia, including Gravelly Point Park directly across the Potomac River from Washington, taking advantage of a law signed in 2009 by President Barack Obama that allows visitors to carry loaded firearms into national parks as long as the state allows it.


After the Heller decision, the District's city council passed the Firearms Registration Amendment Act of 2008.

Under the law, would-be gun owners must go through a process requiring fingerprints, photographs and the detailing of some job history.

Applicants have to take a 20-question test on the District's gun laws and regulations. There is a five-hour class, including at least one hour at a gun range, although the city doesn't have a public one. Buyers are required to find trainers from a list approved by police. There is a vision exam, and once the process is complete, the gun must be taken back to the police to be fired for a ballistic identification.

The registration expires after three years and must be renewed. If it lapses, the police can seize the gun, and for a first offense, the owner could be jailed for up to one year and fined $1,000.

The law designates certain guns as assault weapons that can't be bought in the city. It limits the size of the ammunition-feeding devices to no more than 10 bullets. Many common semi-automatic pistols can hold more than that.

In 2011, the city will require semi-automatic pistols owned in the city to be produced with devices that imprint shell casings with a code or serial number as part of the firing process. That would make it easier to link shell casings to guns. The technology, known as micro-stamping or micro-engraving, is in its infancy, and most manufacturers haven't yet adopted it.

Peter Nickles, the District's Attorney General, acknowledged the law requires technology that "may not exist right now. But if you build it they will come. While we are not there yet, there is a lot of science out there and a lot of development."

Many jurisdictions around the U.S. have elements of the District of Columbia's law, but few have all of them. Only Hawaii has a gun registration process, in place since 1988, as strict as the District's and only California has a micro-stamping law, though it hasn't been implemented yet. Gun-rights and gun-control groups agree the city's law is among the most restrictive in the country.

Attorney General Nickles contends the District is on sound legal footing. "The effort that was made by the city council was to come up with a law that balanced the Supreme Court's requirement that we authorize firearms for use in self-defense in the home with public safety," he said. "I think we struck the right balance."

The city is surrounded by jurisdictions that don't have the same laws as the District, Mr. Nickles said. The result is there is a proliferation of illegal guns in the city. "There's no denying the fact that we have a helluva lot of illegal guns on the streets," he said, but the solution isn't to "arm everyone."

Even without the new law, Washington, D.C., presents obstacles to the would-be gun buyer. There are no gun stores in the city. It has few federally licensed firearms dealers—businesses that can transfer a handgun into the city that was bought elsewhere.

The city changed its zoning laws in 2009 to permit gun stores, but no business has tried to open one, according to the Attorney General's office. Only one federally licensed firearms dealer, C.S. Exchange, is performing transfers to the public. Under the law, handguns bought outside the city must be transferred through a licensed gun dealer in the city.

Charles Sykes, owner of C.S. Exchange, conducts business by appointment only. He estimates fees for registration, testing, fingerprinting and transfers can double the cost of a gun. He doesn't think demand would support a fully operational gun store. These days, he can go weeks without making a transfer. "At first you had a rush of people going down to police headquarters to pick up information" on buying guns after the 2008 court decision, he said. "But they didn't rush to get firearms."

Lenwood Johnson sits on a District advisory commission, a body elected to represent neighborhoods with various city authorities. In January, he talked about owning an unregistered gun in a short article in the Washington City Paper, an alternative weekly.

Two days later, he said, the D.C. Metropolitan Police appeared at his apartment on a Saturday and asked to search it. They left after finding nothing.

The following Tuesday, Mr. Johnson, 50, went to the police's gun-registration section and picked up an information packet.

Three days later, police came to his apartment again, with a warrant, after he'd left for work. "They searched every inch, every box, every drawer, the dirty clothes hamper, the cookie jar, and didn't find anything," Mr. Johnson said.

“ I wonder how D.C. residents would feel if there were similar hurdles to jump through for the right to vote or to form a religious association or to publish a newspaper. ”

—Brian Kullman

Mr. Johnson said he keeps the gun with relatives in Maryland and decided not to bring the gun into the city and register it. "After what I went through with the District, it's just not worth it." A long-time NRA member, he said he is not an activist and doesn't want to draw attention by raising a ruckus. "I just want to legally own a gun," he said.

Lt. Jon Shelton, who commands the firearms-registration section and gun-control unit, said police went to Mr. Johnson after his public statements that he owned an unregistered gun. "We would be neglecting our duty if we did not."

After the Supreme Court's Heller decision, Lt. Shelton, who has been an officer 22 years, said he expected a "much larger response," than there has been in terms of residents buying firearms. "I had geared up. I anticipated it."

Mr. Snyder, the biathlete, said he contacted the registration division Jan. 20, 2009, about registering a rifle if he bought one. "I wanted to do everything by the book," he said.

He says he was told by police he wouldn't be required to submit to the new training requirements, which didn't go into effect until April 2009. "The steps they gave me were to get the paperwork, buy the gun, have the dealer fill out the paperwork, return the paperwork to the police with a photo, take a test with 20 questions and go through fingerprinting."

He learned later about a safety course he needed. He also had a 10-day waiting period. It took days before an approved trainer called back to set up an appointment. By the time he finished the process, he said, it was Feb. 26, and the $300 in fees he paid had doubled the cost of the rifle.

20 May 2010

Open Carry: not a return to the Wild West

Claremore Daily Progress

From Oklahoma:

Ben Sherrer
State Representative

OKLAHOMA CITY — Mention the two words “Open Carry” and many people have thoughts of turning our main streets into scenes from Gunsmoke or Bonanza.

Back in January when I first heard talk about an Open Carry firearms law in Oklahoma that was my knee-jerk reaction as well.

In fact, it was my perception that such laws only existed in states like Montana and Wyoming – states that stir images of the old west in our minds.

Upon doing some research I was surprised to learn that 13 States allow pure open carry without vehicle restrictions and 17 States allow open carry with vehicle restrictions.

An additional 13 States allow open carry with a permit. A total of 43 states have some form of open carry.

More important than the existence of open carry in other states is the absence of evidence that indicates widespread tragedies and unintended consequences have occurred as a result of open carry laws across the nation.

Similar concerns were levied when Oklahoma passed a concealed carry law, which has not resulted in adverse consequences either.

If House bill 3354 ultimately becomes law it will place us in the category that would allow persons with a concealed carry license to openly carry a firearm. In our state of over 3.3 million people, there are approximately 93,000 concealed carry permit holders.

The 2010 legislative session will conclude at the end of May if a budget agreement is reached. I am hopeful that a compromise can be reached that will stabilize funding even in the wake of a billion dollar revenue shortfall.

Please contact my office if you have any questions about pending legislation. I can be reached at bensherrer@okhouse.gov or 800-522-8502. Until next week, God bless you.

n Ben Sherrer is state representative for District 8.

Tea Partiers of the World, Unite!

by Nick Rizzuto

In the winter of 1847, The Communist League met in London to sketch out a platform for the international communist movement. Previously, the communist movement was made up of disparate factions of various national, ethnic, and even religious flavors. What emerged from this congress of communist revolutionaries was a united movement. Following the meeting in London, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels took up the task of forging the preeminent radical polemic of the international socialist, the Communist Manifesto. Their movement thenceforth, and to the detriment of civilization, moved forward as a united international juggernaut. The communist’s drive to organize themselves into an ideological powerhouse was not the first of its kind, but one that profoundly influenced much of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Multi-national political movements are indeed an old concept. It should strike us as curious then that there has never been, as far as I can tell, an international movement focused on the tenets of individual liberty. Perhaps this is owed, in part, to the fact that those who advocate for liberty tend to be individualists, preferring self-sufficiency and individual effort to the collective mobilization that is inherent in large movements. Whatever the reason, it appears that while other, more destructive movements have risen to the international stage, the liberty movement has lagged in its ability to organize in such a way.

While there have indeed been revolutions inspired by the ideas of liberty they more often than not were limited to national stages and were of varying levels of success. The American Revolution, which acts as the primary inspiration for our current Tea Party movement, is the clearest example of the success of these ideas, but there have also been revolutions, similarly inspired, that failed to achieve the ends of they had set out to achieve. The French Revolution, for example, was inspired in large part by the same philosophy as the American, but it fell victim to revolutionary excesses and violence. Post-revolutionary France fell into a state of bedlam until the rise of the dictatorial Napoleon put the final nail in the coffin of their revolution.

While international organization might have been deficient for the liberty movement historically, it appears that that is on the verge of changing. For the first time, there appears to be a growing international liberty movement, springing forth from the roots of our current American civic reawakening.

In recent months, inspired by what they are observing here in the states, Tea Party organizations have begun to rise in up the furthest corners of the world. While these organizations might have different concerns, ones that are specific to their particular nations, it is clear that each has formed around the same concepts: limited governance and individual liberty.

Ironically it was England, who in the 18th century was at the unpleasant end of a Tea Party, which was the first outside of the US to hold a Tea Party rally, launching their national movement in February of this year. In addition, Tea Party organizations have popped up in Ireland, the Netherlands, Australia, and Japan. Most recently, we have learned that Israel is planning on staging its first Tea Party in Tel-Aviv.

This nascent international movement owes its rise to several factors: First, the financial collapse has sent ripples throughout the economies of most western nations. In doing so, many people have begun to question the ability of governments to effectively control their economies. Ideas like central banking, heavily regulated industries, and progressive taxation appear more and more to be the cause of our current crisis rather than the solution.

Second, modern communication has allowed us to transmit news and ideas in a way that is historically unprecedented. Our ability to network with one another has been a key to the national Tea Parties and is central to the growth of the international movement a well.

Finally, the international Tea Parties are most certainly a reaction to the international progressivism that has been the dominant force in politics for several decades now. Western nations have given in to the temptation of establishing generous welfare states that have caused the slow decay of society from within. The results of these policies can be seen all over Europe including states that are in what might be considered to be long economic dormancies, as well as those that are in danger of full collapse, as in the case in Greece.

Cumulatively, these factors have made the landscape ripe for a movement that rejects the precept that big governments are prepared to take on the burdens they currently shoulder.

An international liberty movement is an idea whose time has come. As a matter of fact, it is one that’s long overdue. We are truly living in interesting times.



Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

19 May 2010

Public Service Message 05.19.10



LINK

BLOG

'Liberal' Is Worse Than Any Curse Word Now

Fox News

Washington politicians, here's the message of semi-Super Tuesday: If you've embraced a liberal agenda of big government and huge spending -- you'll find yourself in trouble.

Yesterday's elections showed that there is only one real dirty word this campaign cycle: liberal -- not incumbent. The focus on incumbents is just a liberal media dodge to ignore the fact that it is their ideology is being repudiated. For the next five months you'll hear the leftist media and Democrats try to deflect the wins of conservatives and Tea Party candidates like Rand Paul as merely a vote against Washington. While that's partly true, it's the big Washington abuse of power -- the core of liberalism -- that's the problem, not just the fact that these candidates happen to be in office and reside in the Beltway.

Those in Washington who were fiscally reckless and supported the stimulus, TARP and the creation of a costly new entitlement with the healthcare bill are casualties of the wave. From Specter to Bob Bennett (the Republican who lost two weeks ago thanks to his support for TARP) we saw last night what we saw in the fall in New Jersey, Massachusetts and Virginia. If you've embraced a liberal agenda of big government and huge spending -- you'll find yourself in trouble.

That is why the Tea Party movement is successful and much more than the initial charges that it was merely "manufactured outrage." They could not flourish if it wasn't for the lurch to the left by Democrats, and to some degree George Bush and some Republicans. That's why President Obama was not and is not going to be helpful to candidates in his party going forward - because the backlash is against him
.

Let's Wise Up About Who and What We Are Fighting

Fox News

Just as there is “organized crime,” there is “organized terror.”

The presidents of the United States and Afghanistan have met. Can the strained relations between the two allies be repaired? Or will the American public’s patience with the difficult US and allied counter insurgency war against terrorism unravel? Much is at stake. Particularly whether we know our enemy and how to defeat it.

Entrenched in the public’s mind is the idea that Al Qaeda and Usama Bin Laden were behind the World Trade Center attacks of September 11. Like that attack, we think loose bands of individual terrorists remain the real threat we face, such as the Times Square bomber. So Americans rightly ask “Why are we in Afghanistan and Iraq?” And “Why don’t we just treat this like a law enforcement issue? With good police work we can stop the attacks before they happen.”

Let’s look at some facts first:

1. The Taliban were created in Afghanistan by the Pakistani ISI and the Saudi government five years after the Soviets left;

2. Al Qaeda [in Afghanistan]…was just one element in a "poisonous coalition of Pakistani and Arab intelligence agencies; impoverished young students bused to their deaths as volunteer fighters from Pakistani religious schools; exiled Central Asian Islamic radicals; ... and wealthy sheikhs and preachers who jetted in from the Persian Gulf”;

3. Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan were established in territory controlled by Hizb-i-Islami, Party of Islam. An Iraqi intelligence document, dated January 25, 1993, found by Americans in Iraq, states that “Iraqi intelligence established ties with Hizb-i-Islami in 1989 and had a direct relationship to its head and to which it provided financial support”; from these camps and from these state sponsors spawned the attacks of 9/11.


That was then. What about now?

1. Just as North Korea now ships weapons to Syria and Syria ships Scud missiles to Hezbollah, so do Gulf financiers now fund the terror groups in Afghanistan; so does Iran provide arms stockpiles to these same terrorists; so does the illicit narcotics trade combine criminal cartels and terror groups into a cooperative syndicate seeking power and money;

2. Much of the organized terror we face in Iraq is financed by ex-Baathists from Saddam’s regime, given sanctuary by the Syrian government, and recruits suicide bombers from the mosques and madras’s of North Africa;

3. In sum, just as there is “organized crime”, there is “organized terror.” And Iraq and Afghanistan are both countries in which the “terror masters” seek to establish their power and from which to organize and attack us.


We used to know this. For example, during the Reagan administration, it was widely understood that “organized terror” was largely the result of Soviet support and that of often allied states such as Libya, North Korea, Iraq, Iran and Syria and their associated terror groups. The attacks in Beirut and over Lockerbie were linked to Syria, Iran and Libya. The World Trade Center attack of 1993 was linked to Saddam Hussein. The Berlin disco bombing to Libya.

Iran is now described by our own State Department as the world’s premier state sponsor of terrorism. A recent DOD report said Iran is supplying tons of weapons to terror groups in Afghanistan and Iraq. A year ago, the city of New York indicted a major Chinese company for selling missile and nuclear weapons technology to Iran.

In a lawsuit against the Saudi government, American survivors of the attacks on 9/11 demanded to be made whole. The U.S. government, in the form of Supreme Court nominee Kagan, acting as President Obama's Solicitor General, argued that the case should not be heard even if evidence proved that the Saudis helped Al Qaeda. The U.S. argued it would interfere with U.S. foreign policy: “…the princes are immune from petitioners’ claims” because of “the potentially significant foreign relations consequences of subjecting another sovereign state to suit.”

Amazingly, this “let ‘em off the hook” policy does not only apply to the Saudis. Legislation passed by the House and Senate sanctions firms doing energy business with Iran—a key sponsor of terror. But the administration wants exceptions created for China and Russia. And sanctions efforts at the U.N. are likewise too often watered down, allowing nation state “suspects” such as Iran to go free.

Yet law enforcement is pursuing those who financed the Times Square “bomber.” Why not those who financed 9/11 and who finance terror today? Shouldn’t we keep our eye on the ball?

Organized terror is the major tool of rogue regimes and their allies in seeking hegemony in various regions of the world. Terror groups can be created, controlled or penetrated by regimes and intelligence services. Attacks may look as if committed by “lone wolf” terrorists or small, loose bands of bad guys.

The Middle East happens to be the center of the world’s supply of oil and gas. He who controls this region of the world controls our economic destiny. The establishment of totalitarian Islam is but one means to that end. Getting America out is the first step.

So if we are going to fight, we have to understand who we are fighting, whether in Afghanistan or Iraq, or here at home. We should understand that terror groups are often run by what Michael Ledeen calls “the terror masters.” And they together are part of “organized terror,” what Claire Sterling 30 years ago described as “The Hydra of Carnage”, the Soviet spawned terrorism we knew at the time as the Baader Meinhof, Black September, Red Brigades, FMLN, the PLO, and the IRA. As Yogi Berra said, welcome to the past, “it’s deja vu all over again.”

18 May 2010

Oklahoma Handgun Carry Law Supported Online

Tulsa Today

Reacting to Governor Brad Henry's veto of HB 3354, the "Open Carry Law," passed only days ago by majorities that could override the Governor’s veto power and make Oklahoma the 44th open carry state, hundreds of Oklahoma residents are now pushing Oklahoma Legislators for passage with a petition online demanding that open carry reform become law.

Petition founder Russ Cook told Tulsa Today, “This reasonable reform would only allow those who hold a concealed carry license to carry openly.

"Bad guys don’t carry openly in a secure holster. They conceal without any license or they brandish to terrorize people,” Cook added.

“Incredibly, Governor Brad Henry has vetoed this bill which merely gives Oklahomans 21 years and older with a licensed concealed permit the option to take their jackets off. By contrast, most states currently don't even require a permit to open carry a handgun for residents over the age of 18 years” Cook added.

Cook says the veto is a slap in the face of all Oklahoma gun owners. “On behalf of all citizens of Oklahoma, we call on the Oklahoma legislature to stand tall against Governor Brad ‘Veto Happy’ Henry, a governor who has cast more vetoes this year than most state governors do in their entire term."





A petition signer alert forum (click here to reach the forum) also urges every Oklahoma gun owner to tell their state legislators to reject the veto.


Should the bill become law, Oklahoma handgun carry laws will still be stricter than most states.

“If people stand silent while government continues to erode personal Liberty in America, that Liberty they love, that their forefathers fought and died to protect and held for generations will soon be gone forever. This is not about any one administration; this is about the Constitution and freedom,” Cook said.

Cook expects the Legislature to override the veto, but adds that they should remember that "gun owners in Oklahoma have elephant memories. Any legislators changing their vote to sustain a veto will likely have some company in their next party primary."

An unsubtle promise in a volatile political year.


Robocop's Comment:

I hope that they make it. It is a shame it has to come to this seeing that their governor is supposed to be Second Amendment friendly. I hope he pays at the ballots.

This Is Beautiful

A beautiful offer made to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa by Arizona Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce:

SNIP

a boycott war is bad for both sides, and said he would "be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements" to end the electricity flowing to Los Angeles.

"I am confident that Arizona's utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands," Mr. Pierce said. "If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona's economy."


GO ARIZONA!

17 May 2010

Arizona Fights Back

Interesting reading on the Fox News site.

Here are some interesting points made in the article "Arizona in Boycott Battle With Immigration Law Opponents"

SNIP


The backlash against the backlash may be getting some support. According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, would-be tourists have started notifying the San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau and some hotels that they are canceling their vacation plans to the Pacific Coast city -- after San Diego's city council decided to launch a boycott against Arizona.


Sucks when we use their tactics against them, doesn't it?

SNIP

As California officials threaten to deprive Arizona of their state's financial support, Arizona has some leverage of its own.

The Golden State gets almost a third of its electricity from Arizona -- most of it coming from a nuclear power plant outside Phoenix, as well as coal-fired power plants in northern Arizona and two giant hydroelectric power generators along the Colorado River.


Maybe Kalifornia will build some more nuke plants for their own use, of course that would violate another one of their "principles".


SNIP


California also contracts to house 4,000 inmates in Arizona prisons, not to mention a $22 million contract at city-owned Los Angeles International Airport for Phoenix-based U.S. Airways and millions more in trucking contracts at the port of Los Angeles.


Over crowded prisons and airports, oh my!

SNIP

In California, some officials are likewise worried about the counter-boycott on San Diego.

"We're in a very tough environment already because of everything else going on, and we don't need another negative impact to our industry," Convention and Visitors Bureau President Joe Terzi told the Union-Tribune. "This affects all the hardworking men and women who count on tourism for their livelihoods, so we're saying, don't do something that hurts their livelihoods."

"I've been approached by a number of hotels who are very concerned because they've received cancelations from Arizona guests," Namara Mercer, executive director of the county Hotel-Motel Association, told the newspaper.


Then let Arizona voters, not Kalifornians run their own state!

SNIP

Bruce St. James, radio talk show host at KTAR, said the law looks a lot different to those who actually live in Arizona.

"I think it's easy to throw stones when you're sitting so far away," he said. "When you're in the middle of it, I think if you believe any of the polls ... close to 70 percent of the people who have to live here think this is a step in the right direction."


AMEN!!

For those of you who would like to help Arizona out, try paying a visit to BUYcottArizona.com. I am do for a vacation soon...




16 May 2010

Black Supremacists-1, Voters-0




Washington Times

Let's avoid all the mealy-mouthed euphemisms: In the now-infamous New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s Justice Department stands accused of being dishonest, racist, political hacks. The department's responses to those charges have been so weak that they may as well have pleaded nolo contendere. A hearing today by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights provides the department one more chance to adequately explain itself. Right now, no adequate explanation seems to exist.

It was one year ago tomorrow that department officials overrode the advice of career attorneys, and of the department's own appellate division, by dropping three of four charges in the Black Panther case and seeking an extremely limited injunction in the fourth. The case involved voluminous testimony that two Black Panthers - dressed in paramilitary garb while one brandished a nightstick - stood within arm's length of a Philadelphia polling place while repeatedly using racial epithets and threats.

At an April 23 hearing held by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, witnesses agreed that both Black Panthers acted in concert, shoulder to shoulder, that they used verbal threats against black Republicans and against whites they called "white devils" and "crackers." Two witnesses specifically said they saw would-be voters turn around and leave the area without voting after seeing these forms of intimidation. Former Acting Associate Attorney General Gregory G. Katsas testified that, "on its face, the complaint appears to involve a straightforward and overwhelmingly strong case of voter intimidation which [ordinarily] would have raised neither policy sensitivities nor the possibility of conflicting positions within [the department]." His conclusion: "The alleged conduct appears egregious and intentional."

Finally, Mr. Katsas said decisions by the department to reverse legal positions and drop such prosecutions are "extremely rare - and for good reason: They inevitably undermine [the department's] credibility with the courts, and they inevitably raise suspicion that [the department's] litigating position may be influenced by political considerations."

Christopher Coates, the multiple award-winning career attorney who oversaw the case before the Obama-Holder team exiled him to the hinterlands, made clear in a going-away speech just what he thought the Obama administration's political considerations are. As reported (in close paraphrase) by the Heritage Foundation's Hans von Spakovsky at National Review Online, Mr. Coates suggested the agenda is "to enforce the provisions of the Voting Rights Act only for the protection of certain racial or ethnic minorities" and "to turn a blind eye whenever incidents arise that indicate that minority persons have acted improperly in voting matters."

In short, white voters have no civil rights.


Neither Mr. Coates nor his former colleagues who brought the case can tell their stories in public because the Justice Department, in violation of federal law, ordered them not to comply with the subpoenas of the Civil Rights Commission. This comes after the department falsely claimed that none of its political appointees had a role in the decision to drop the case, and then spent a full year stonewalling information requests from the commission, Congress and the press.

Mr. Holder's civil rights division chief, Thomas E. Perez, is set to testify at today's commission hearing. Whether he'll come clean, though, is very much in doubt.


Robocop's Comment:


The Libtards are right on one thing: the government is racist, but only if you are not black or hispanic. If the KKK did this at a polling place, the Justice Department would have been all over them like Modonna on a young man. Just another prime example of the Liberal Double Standard.

15 May 2010

Who Is Racist Again?

WARNING: STRONG LANGUAGE IN ENGLISH.



Robocop's Comment:

I hate to break it to him, but half his ancestors are from Europe. There was a shortage on Aztecs after the Spaniards settled in.





Armed Forces Day

Muslim Terrorists Crossing US/Mexican Border

The Stars And Stripes Offends Another "Educator"



Robocop's Comment:

Another fine job of nurturing our young.

13 May 2010

Royal Douche 05.13.10




The Winner: Dr. George V. Fornero

Reason: His decision to cancel a girls' basketball team's trip to Arizona over his tantrum over Arizona's lawful immigration law. Of course, sending kids to trips in the People's Republic Of China is ok to him, since they are so humane over there, right? If Illinois does not want an anti illegal immigration law, that is up to them. Arizona is not his territory. The children of his school district already put up with the indoctrination of a liberal school system. Why screw up their games as well? These girls earn the right to go to places like Arizona, through fair competition, and hard work. I doubt this douche ever heard of this idea.

The funny thing about this situation is that he officially states that all school functions belong in the school district in Illinois all of a sudden. Too bad he already allowed kids to go to China, a Liberal icon of human rights.

He also demonstrates his faith in his students by stressing that the team has not qualified for the championships. And if they do, then what? He is running out of legitimate excuses. This is plainly political, and school taxes are paying for this kind of liberal crap.

BTW: You may tell him your opinion if you would like:

Dr. George V. Fornero

Superintendent


Administrative Center
1040 Park Ave West
Highland Park, IL 60035
Phone: (224) 765-1000

email: gfornero@dist113.org


Runner Up: Assistant Superintendent Suzan Hebson.

Reason:

Same as the winner, except she is a loser.


Girls Hoops Team May Need to 'Go Rogue'

Sarah Palin

Editor's note: The outrage over an Illinois school administrator's decision to cancel a girls' basketball team's trip to Arizona has attracted nationwide attention. George Fornero, superintendent of District 113 in Illinois, which oversees Highland Park High School, defended the decision by Assistant Superintendent Suzan Hebson and said it was not a political statement in response to Arizona's new law. The following is from a discussion about the school's decision to cancel the trip to Arizona as discussed on Fox News Channel on May 13.


"AMERICA LIVE" HOST, MEGYN KELLY:


You have advice for these girls, what is it?


FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR/FORMER ALASKA GOV. SARAH PALIN:


[The Illinois school district's decision is] probably the most outrageous school district decision I've heard in quite some time.

I want these girls to feel empowered and "go rogue" if they must. Figure out a way to protest a decision like this and figure out a way to get there on their own. If it can be done, not being sanctioned by the school, [they should still go to] this tournament. Look at the lady hoopsters, they're told no ball in Arizona, because, Arizona isn't, as they said "aligned with the beliefs and values" of, I guess, their school district. Yet, their school district blessed the student trips to China!

So that what they're saying there is, that our sister state Arizona, it doesn't share our beliefs and values. But China, known for its human rights violations, and it's anti-girl policies, does share their values? This is absolutely unbelievable. I say let the girls play ball. Keeping the girls off the basketball court for purely political reasons, it's not right. and you know, for me, hearing the words, those are fighting words.

We are going to do all that we can to shed more light on what this political issue is, this Arizona boycott. It's going to hurt everybody in Arizona, including the Hispanic community. And it's not a solution to the problem. The problem is how are we going to secure our borders. Keeping girls off the basketball court has nothing to do with the solution that we need to find!

What these girls are going to find as they grow up and enter sort of real life and family and career they are going to find that everything they ever needed to know they will have learned on the basketball court. They will have learned teamwork, and leadership skills, they will have learned goal setting and self-discipline and personal responsibility, and they will have learned how to plow through the opponent, a full-court press, perhaps, that is adversarial and picking at you and trying to make decisions for you to get you off your game. They are going to learn how to plow through that and those lessons will be able to be applied in their future lives.

At a time like this, for these girls who are already honing those skills and learning those things, to have something stripped away from them that's based on nonsense -- because the school district's ruling is nonsense -- it makes no sense that Arizona, the people of Arizona, essentially are being boycotted, because they don't share their "values and beliefs," it does strip away much from these girls. But I think that they will find within themselves that empowerment, that ability to stand up for what they believe in. and as we've heard from so many of these girls and their parents, even though some of them may agree or disagree with the law that Governor Brewer signed into law, [is that] they still have that right to speak up and to stand for what they believe in. And I think that those girls are going to feel empowered here in these coming days and do exactly that.

Let the girls play ball!

Tribute To Out President

10 May 2010

Stinko de Mayo

Washington Times

On May 5, five students at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, Calif., were sent home for wearing clothing featuring the American flag. Their offense: trespassing on Mexican heritage during Cinco de Mayo. Administrators called the flag-wearing "incendiary" and likely to cause violence. The school district overrode the decision, and the boys were allowed to return to school. In response yesterday, about 200 students staged a walkout carrying Mexican flags. The question is: Who taught these kids to hate America so much?

There should be nothing disrespectful about the U.S. flag to Americans of Mexican descent or to any other immigrant group. Teaching children that their heritage is at odds with their citizenship promotes disunity and divisiveness. While the high school's administrators may have been responding to a real public-safety threat, that threat was the product of their failure to instill a sense of national pride in their students.

Identity politics has become such a staple of public life and education in recent decades that incidents like this illustrate the poisonous effects it has on the nation. In the past, immigrant groups would attempt to outdo each other in demonstrating their patriotic attachment to the country that gave them safety, opportunity and freedom. Today, immigrant activist groups think patriotism is at best an inconvenience, at worst a sellout. They have replaced the melting pot with hardening battle lines in a struggle for power.

It is odd that Cinco de Mayo has become a focus of conflict. In Mexico, it is a relatively unimportant, mainly local holiday. But in the United States, it has become the de facto Mexican nationalist day, a far cry from its origins in the 1980s as a marketing gimmick by beer importers to sell brews that taste best with lime wedges.

This is only the latest instance of Old Glory being forced into the closet. In 2006, a Colorado school seeking to placate Mexican nationalists banned the American flag. After a mass student protest, Mexican flags were banned as well. In 2008, Dos Palos, Calif., high school student Jake Shelly was forced to remove a red, white and blue tie-dyed American-flag T-shirt he had worn to school because he was in violation of a dress code banning "shirts/blouses that promote specific races, cultures, or ethnicities." In 2007, students at Hobbton High School in Sampson County, N.C., were not allowed to wear American-flag-themed clothes on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks because of a general school prohibition on garments featuring flags. The superintendent of schools said that "educators didn't want to be forced to pick and choose which flags should be permissible."

Not all flags are created equal. Some flags may be fashion statements, but the American flag is the patriotic symbol of the nation in which we live. This is why the American flag flies outside schools as opposed to, say, Zimbabwe's. Schools should spend less time telling patriotic students not to cause a ruckus simply by wearing the national colors and more time teaching the kids who are offended by the American flag how wrongheaded their views are. This might require teachers and administrators to begin making value judgments and moral choices for the benefit of the children they are charged with educating. The Stars and Stripes should be a proud statement of unity for all.


Robocop's Comment:

4 Scary Ways Terror and Immigration Are Tied Together

Fox News

Our own immigration system is so riddled with holes that terrorists can drive into our country in an explosive laden truck just like the Times Square bomb suspect did.

We can only hope that the Times Square near-bombing will focus our attention on the conventional wisdom surrounding from the left surrounding immigration reform. First there's the belief that no attempt at reform can succeed without a generous amnesty. Then, there's the belief that immigration "coyotes" and other scam artists do not associate with terrorists. And finally, there's the misguided belief that our relatively open border with Mexico, and thus by default the rest of the world, is no big deal, and can be resolved through the simple act of issuing more work visas.

In my own conversations with experts on immigration, the drug cartels and terrorism, it has always been an article of faith that while drug cartels certainly use illegal immigration as a conduit for smuggling drugs, terrorists are not welcome among the coyotes that smuggle migrants and vice versa. But that is changing.

In the laptop captured from a top FARC commander, evidence was found of links between Chavez and Russia (from where weapons and explosives would come and be transferred) and Hezbollah and drug syndicates (where FARC would help Hezbollah blow up pipelines carrying Mexican oil for America).

I'm not concerned about the links between terrorism and immigration because it's the issue of the day. And it's not because Arizona has passed legislation that enables local and state law enforcement to actually “enforce” a 1940 federal statute dealing with whether legal residents but not citizens of the U.S. have to carry “papers” (they do). Nor am I focused on it because the Senate is, once again, considering bringing up "compressive immigration reform."

No, the events that have made me even more concerned about immigration are four-fold.


1. Dozens of bomb plotters in attacks on the United States have used the immigration system to marry women here in America and thus gain citizenship faster and with less scrutiny than they otherwise would. This includes the bombing suspect arrested for attempting to blow up people in New York City and Times Square, a point made eloquently and most recently by Michelle Malkin.

2. In 2008, I testified before the Maryland State Assembly that driver licenses should not be given to those illegally in America. Remember Muhammad Atta had a driver’s license and when stopped in North Carolina for a traffic violation, the local police officer could not access immigration records to determine that Atta was here on an expired visa.

After testifying, I remained outside the hearing room and listened to a local Montgomery County representative to the Annapolis Assembly being interviewed by Mexican television about the oppressive nature of such a law as forbidding those illegally in the U.S. from getting driver licenses. She told a Mexican television reporter that there was really no such thing as an illegal immigrant: “They are all here simply waiting to adjust their status."

3. Then there is the news that Syria, probably via Iran and North Korea, has transferred Scud missiles to Hezbollah, the Lebanese-based terrorist subsidiary of Iran. Remember, Scud missiles used to be what we thought about when thinking about missile threats from Saddam’s Iraq and Kim’s North Korea. It appears everyone has graduated—Kim to long range rockets and Hezbollah to Scuds!

4. Finally, there's the likelihood that Iran will get a nuclear weapon and transfer it to a specially created and trained terror group to smuggle it into the United States. Open borders make that an easier job. Scam marriages do too.


So, here we are congratulating ourselves for capturing the Times Square suspect when our own immigration system is so riddled with holes that terrorists can drive right across our borders in an explosive laden truck and with a driver’s license secured in any number of states blind to current threats. And we congratulate ourselves when our supposed potential peace partners, with whom were are so eager to engage, are either sending rockets to terrorists or building nuclear bombs destined for an American city.

Why then are Washington elites hell-bent on approving amnesty provisions as a part of what is known as “compressive immigration reform?" What part of “terror-sponsoring state,” “terrorist,” “open borders” and “bomb” do they not understand? And what do we make of the common complaint that we only wish to secure our borders and make our immigration system synonymous with “common sense” because we are a racist country inhospitable to ethnic groups other than “Anglos?" God, has anyone who claims this actually walked around any American city recently? Amnesty is objectionable because the person who gets to decide whether or not 16 million estimated illegal immigrants get to stay in this country are the illegal immigrants themselves!! They are, of course, “just adjusting their status."

Speaking of the millions of people already here illegally, David Broder quoted the late Senator Kennedy as being dumbfounded about why people could not understand why the illegal immigrants already here in the USA had to stay here. The assumption: we cannot send them home or they will not go home. And so if they wish to stay here in America, well, they get to stay here. And if jihadists intent on blowing us all to kingdom come, want to come here from rural Pakistan and marry an American citizen—well aren’t we all in favor of multiculturalism? (Parenthetically, what skills are we adding to the American workforce by such an immigration policy?)

Immigration policy is now, by default, no longer a question of whom we as Americans desire to accept into our country. It has become a question of who wants to come to America whether we like it or not. And that is why so many citizens of this country are supportive of the Arizona law and against the amnesty provisions of past immigration reform laws. We want our sovereignty back. We want to decide who gets to be future Americans—because we value American citizenship and believe it should not simply be given away, either through amnesty, sham marriages or some wacky notion of multiculturalism. And we care who comes in and out of our country. Especially if they are armed. Armed with a bomb. Or a nuclear weapon. Feeling safe?

Peter Huessy is Senior Defense Consultant at the National Defense University Foundation.

09 May 2010

Right Wing Extremist Linked To Time Square Bombing Attempt

NOT REALLY. LOL But I bet that headline gave all visiting Libtards a twitch.

How about...

Pakistani Taliban Behind Times Square Bomb Plot, Officials Say

The investigation into the Times Square bomb plot has revealed that the Pakistani Taliban were behind the failed attack, top Obama administration officials said Sunday.

The investigation into the Times Square bomb plot has revealed that the Pakistani Taliban were behind the failed attack, top Obama administration officials said Sunday.

Despite conflicting claims over the past week from military and law enforcement officials, as well as Taliban leaders, Attorney General Eric Holder and White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan said that authorities now believe suspect Faisal Shahzad acted at the direction of the Taliban in Pakistan and was probably funded by them.

Brennan told "Fox News Sunday" that Shahzad had "extensive interaction" with the group, which he described as virtually "indistinguishable" from Al Qaeda. He said investigators believe the suspect was trained by the militant network.

"It looks as though he was operating on behalf of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan," he said. "This is a group that is closely aligned with Al Qaeda. It has a murderous agenda similar to Al Qaeda, they train together, they plan together, they plot together. They're almost indistinguishable."

New York law enforcement officials initially said they did not have evidence to support claims made by the Pakistani Taliban that they were responsible for the attempted attack. The Taliban later reversed their claim.

Gen. David Petraeus also previously described Shahzad as a "lone wolf" merely inspired by Pakistani militants in a statement to The Associated Press.

But Holder said Sunday that investigators have found solid links back to Pakistan. He said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that the Taliban were "intimately involved" in the plot.

"We've now developed evidence which shows that the Pakistani Taliban was behind the attack," he said on ABC's "This Week." "We know that they helped facilitate it. We know that they probably helped finance it, and that he was working at their direction."

Shahzad, a U.S. citizen of Pakistani descent, was arrested Monday in connection with the plot.
Holder said investigators have found no evidence to suggest that the Pakistani government, which he described as cooperative in the investigation, had any prior knowledge of Shahzad's plans.


Guns Needed To Stop Chicago Murders

Washington Times

If Chicago were serious about bringing its violent crime problem under control, it would recognize the constitutional right of residents to use firearms to protect themselves.

The city's troubles are so extreme that a pair of state lawmakers are calling on a fellow Democrat, Gov. Pat Quinn, to deploy the National Guard to help restore calm. The latest figures show that Chicago had racked up 122 homicides for the year, exceeding the 116 killings over the comparable period in 2009, a very bad year. Among the top 10 U.S. cities, Chicago is within shooting distance of advancing from second place to win the dubious distinction of being the U.S. murder capital. It's no coincidence that the Windy City is already the U.S. gun-control capital.

Since 1982, Chicago has banned the private ownership of handguns and rifles by requiring a convoluted registration process designed to be impossible to complete. Exceptions to the rules enable politicians and their personal friends to own and even carry handguns - but nobody else. This unconstitutional scheme has been a colossal failure. Before the ban took effect, Chicago's murder rate had been falling relative to the nine other largest cities, the 50 largest cities, the five counties that border Cook County, and the United States as a whole. After the ban, Chicago's murder rate rose relative to all these locations. During the first 19 years of the ban, there were just three years when the murder rate was as low as when the ban started.

Such facts are not important to Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, who continues to insist that more gun-control laws are the "solution" to his crime problem - as if hardened thugs carefully consulted the book of municipal ordinances before embarking on a crime spree. A more rational analysis would conclude that the restrictions apply only to good, law-abiding people looking for a way to defend themselves and their families. When the thugs know victims are defenseless, they pounce.

That means it is up to the Supreme Court to restore to Chicagoans their fundamental right to self-defense. In the pending case of McDonald v. Chicago, a number of residents are asking the high court to apply the reasoning it used to strike down Washington's gun ban. It is worth noting that a year after the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller ruling, Washington's murder rate dropped 25 percent - without resorting to using the National Guard.

Encouraging personal ownership of guns is the only proven solution to Chicago's crime problem.