ROYAL DOUCHE 06.30.10

The Winner: Rep. Pete Stark (D) California

The Reason: Trying to tell us the Southern Border is secure, and mocking concerned Americans over the matter.

A California congressman known for edgy sarcasm mocked an opponent of illegal immigration during a town hall meeting last week, asking, "Who are you going to kill today?" before the constituent, a self-identified Minuteman, posed his question.

Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., no stranger to controversy, mocked the idea that the borders are not secure when asked about the federal government's lack of activity on border security.

"We can't get enough Minutemen armed. We'd like to get all the Minutemen armed so they can stop shooting people here," Stark said.

Eventually, members of the audience urged Stark to offer a serious answer.

"If you knew anything about our borders, you would know that's not the case. Our borders are quite secure, thank you," Stark said, drawing jeers.

Related Links
Gay Advocacy Groups Battle Over Arizona Boycott
Brewer Slams Administration Over Smuggler Warning Signs in Arizona Desert

Stark resumed his hostile act, asking the Minuteman what he would do to secure the border.

"I would send about about 25,000 troops for one thing and build a wall down so vehicles could not pass," the Minuteman said.

"How high and long would it be?" Stark asked.

"As high and as long as it takes," the Minuteman said, elicting cheers.

Stark said he would start a ladder company with the Minuteman if he designed the wall and doesn't shoot the people coming over.

"But I've got to know how high the wall is and I'll sell a whole lot of ladders for people who want to come," Stark said.

"This is a very serious matter and you're sitting there making fun of it," the Minuteman responded.

"I don't have to make fun of you sir, you do a fine job all by yourself," Stark said.

Stark made the comments last week at a town hall audience that included Steve Kemp, a member of the Golden Gate Minutemen, a group that opposes illegal immigrants. Kemp recorded the confrontation.

A spokesman for Stark did not return voicemail messages left at his office or on his cell phone. He also didn't respond to an e-mail seeking comment.

The clash came as the national spotlight focuses on Arizona's tough new law cracking down on illegal immigrants and the protests it is drawing across the country, including a legal challenge from the federal government.

Immigration is shaping up to be among the critical election-year issues as Republicans try to regain control of both chambers in Congress riding a wave of anti-Washington sentiment.

Stark, a liberal Democrat, is expected to easily win re-election against a lightly regarded opponent, political newcomer Justin Jelincic, who describes himself as a conservative Democrat.

Stark earned his primary challenge after he slammed a constituent who voiced his opposition to Obama's health care plan last summer at a town hall meeting.

"Mr. Congressman, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining," the constituent told Stark, referring to what he called the smoke and mirrors of the president's plan.

"I wouldn't dignify you be peeing on your leg," Stark fired back. "It wouldn't be worth wasting the urine."

In March, Stark seized control of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee for one day after Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., stepped aside due to an ethics probe. But Stark was quickly pushed aside in favor of Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., after many Democrats privately complained that Stark was too volatile to lead such an important committee.

Stark is known for making inflammatory comments.

In 2007, Stark accused President Bush of sending troops to Iraq "to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."

He also once called former Colorado Republican Rep. Scott McInnis a "fruitcake."

McDonald v. Chicago

Why Guns Are Good

By John Stossel

You know what the mainstream media think about guns and our freedom to carry them.

Pierre Thomas of ABC: "When someone gets angry or when they snap, they are going to be able to have access to weapons."

Chris Matthews of MSNBC: "I wonder if in a free society violence is always going to be a part of it if guns are available."

Keith Olbermann, also of MSNBC, who usually can't be topped for absurdity: "Organizations like the NRA ... are trying to increase deaths by gun in this country."

"Trying to?" Well, I admit that I bought that nonsense for years. Living in Manhattan, working at ABC, everyone agreed that guns are evil. And that the NRA is evil. (Now that the NRA has agreed to a sleazy deal with congressional Democrats on political speech censorship, maybe some of its leaders areevil, but that's for another column.)

Now I know that I was totally wrong about guns. Now I know that more guns means -- hold onto your seat -- lesscrime.

(This will be the topic, by the way, tomorrow night on my Fox Business News show.)

How can that be, when guns kill almost 30,000 Americans a year?

Because while we hear about the murders and accidents, we don't often hear about the crimes stopped because would-be victims showed a gun and scared criminals away.

Those thwarted crimes and lives saved usually aren't reported to police (sometimes for fear the gun will be confiscated), and when they are reported, the media tend to ignore them. No bang, no news.

This state of affairs produces a distorted public impression of guns. If you only hear about the crimes and accidents, and never about lives saved, you might think gun ownership is folly.

But, hey, if guns save lives, it logically follows that gun laws cost lives.

Suzanna Hupp and her parents were having lunch at Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, when a man began shooting diners with his handgun, even stopping to reload. Suzanna's parents were two of the 23 people killed. (20 more were wounded.)

Suzanna owned a handgun, but because Texas law, at the time, did not permit her to carry it with her, she left it in her car. She's confident that she could have stopped the shooting spree if she had her gun. (Texas has since changed its law.)

Today, 40 states issue permits to competent, law-abiding adults to carry concealed handguns (Vermont and Alaska have the most libertarian approach: no permit needed. Arizona is about to join that exclusive club.) Every time a carry law was debated, anti-gun activists predicted outbreaks of gun violence after fender-benders, card games and domestic quarrels.

What happened?

John Lott, in his book "More Guns, Less Crime," explains that crime fell by 10 percent in the year after the laws were passed . A reason for the drop in crime may have been that criminals suddenly worried that their next victim might be armed.

Indeed, criminals in states with high civilian gun ownership were the most worried about encountering armed victims.

In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, almost half of all burglaries occur when residents are home. But in the United States, where many households contain guns, only 13 percent of burglaries happen when someone's at home.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in the Heller case that Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun ownership was unconstitutional. District politicians then loosened the law but still have so many restrictions that there are no gun shops in the city and just 800 people have received permits. Nevertheless, contrary to the mayor's prediction, robbery and other violent crime are down.

Because Heller applied only to Washington, that case was not the big one. "McDonald v. Chicago" is the big one, and the Supreme Court is expected to rule on that next week. Otis McDonald is a 76-year-old man who lives in a dangerous neighborhood on Chicago's South Side. He wants to buy a handgun, but Chicago forbids it.

If the Supremes say McDonald has that right, then restrictive gun laws will fall throughout America.

Despite my earlier bias, I now understand that striking down those laws will probably save lives.

National Rifle Association Hails Historic Victory on Second Amendment Freedom in McDonald v. City of Chicago

NRA-ILA

Fairfax, Va. -- The National Rifle Association of America today praised the U.S. Supreme Court's historic decision in another landmark Second Amendment case. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment applies not just to Washington, D.C. and other federal enclaves, but protects the rights of all Americans throughout the country. The opinion in McDonald v. City of Chicago brings an end to the nearly 30 year-long handgun ban that the city has imposed on its law-abiding citizens.

“This is a landmark decision,” said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. “The Second Amendment -- as every citizen's constitutional right -- is now a real part of American constitutional law. The NRA will work to ensure this constitutional victory is not transformed into a practical defeat by activist judges defiant city councils or cynical politicians who seek to pervert, reverse or nullify the Supreme Court's McDonald decision through Byzantine labyrinths of restrictions and regulations that render the Second Amendment inaccessible, unaffordable or otherwise impossible to experience in a practical, reasonable way.”

As a party to the case, the NRA participated in oral arguments before the Court in March. The NRA persuasively argued that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment and that handgun bans, like those in the City of Chicago and the Village of Oak Park, are unconstitutional under any standard of judicial review. This same view was shared in friend of the court briefs by a bipartisan group of 309 members of Congress from both chambers, 38 state attorneys general, and hundreds of state legislators. Public opinion polls show that it is also shared by the overwhelming majority of the American people.

“This decision makes absolutely clear that the Second Amendment protects the God-given right of self-defense for all law-abiding Americans, period,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. “Ironically, while crime in Chicago runs rampant and lawmakers there call on the National Guard for help, Mayor Daley has insisted on leaving the residents of his city defenseless. Today's opinion puts the law back on the side of the law-abiding. We will be watching closely to make sure that Chicago abides by both the letter and the spirit of the Supreme Court's decision.”

Open-carry gun activists laud N.C.

The Sun News

Randy Dye will sometimes carry a gun on his hip, right out in the open, no jacket pulled over it, no inside-the-belt holster. It draws funny looks, and Dye doesn't much care.

One time, Dye explains, he was standing in line for a money order when the guy behind him asked, "Are you a police officer?" Dye said no, and the guy kept staring, so Dye stared back. "We good?" Dye asked, and the conversation stopped.

"I wasn't trying to intimidate," says Dye, a retired trauma nurse in Chatham County. "He approached me. If you don't understand your constitutional rights, you need to go read them."

In North Carolina, a grass-roots segment of gun rights advocates increasingly calls for firearms displayed as blatantly as a ballpoint pen in a shirt pocket. A national pro-gun Internet group, opencarry.org, ranks the state among the friendliest to those who wear a weapon for all the world to see. The state, like Montana, Arizona and Kentucky, gets a gold star.

Unlike concealed weapons, plain-sight guns are almost totally unregulated in North Carolina, where only a misdemeanor "going armed to the terror of the public" speaks to the issue. In contrast, gun-friendly states such as Texas and South Carolina are rated as relatively hostile to carrying unconcealed handguns in public even though they, like North Carolina, are among at least 48 states that have concealed handgun carry permit laws.

In the Triangle, more than 100 people have joined an Internet "meetup" group dedicated to open-carry firearms, getting together at a Raleigh Five Guys and a Cary Chik-Fil-A, encouraging even the skittish to attend. A similar group has formed in the Triad, and backers, including Dye, will hold a rally in Greensboro in August.

"It's gaining momentum," said Paul Valone, president of nonprofit firearms group Grass Roots North Carolina. "These are perfectly normal people. These are not gun nuts."

1995 restrictions

Before 1995, firearms advocates note, it was legal to carry a gun openly almost anywhere in public. But when the state's concealed weapons law passed that year, ending a 116-year-old ban on hidden guns, it also set up restrictions for guns of any kind - concealed or otherwise. Firearms are not permitted inside schools or government buildings, for example, and private businesses have the right to post prohibitions on their premises.

A recent Rasmussen Reports poll shows that 47 percent of Americans oppose open-carry laws, citing safety concerns, compared to 41 percent who are in favor. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has lobbied against overt firearms display. Even among gun owners, the question of open versus concealed carry creates a division, with varying degrees of eagerness or dismay about wearing a loaded pistol on the hip.

"I think a lot of people would have problems with that," said Hilton Cancel, a retired police detective who has a concealed carry permit and sits on the board of North Carolinians Against Gun Violence.

In arguing against openly packing a handgun in public, Cancel echoes one of the Old West lines used during the debate about North Carolina's concealed handgun permit law: "Parents with children, and seeing folks carrying guns out in the open, just kind of gives you the feeling you're in Dodge City."

Still, there is nothing on the books that outlaws overt weaponry, short of that misdemeanor that bans going armed "to the terror of the public," which generally doesn't apply to simple gun display.

For some gun rights advocates, carrying an unconcealed gun is an opportunity to vigorously exercise their 2nd Amendment guarantees and for self-defense. In May, Harris Teeter grocery stores faced a huge backlash from gun-carrying customers when the company posted signs banning guns, concealed or otherwise. The signs came down quickly. In 2005, Charlotte contemplated an open-carry ban, but later balked. Nationwide, Starbucks has won plaudits from gun owners for refusing to ban firearms in its stores within open-carry states, unlike stores such as California Pizza Kitchen, which allows only uniformed officers with open guns.

"The Constitution doesn't say I have the right to keep and bear arms if I keep them concealed," said Eric Shuford, an instructor at the Wake County gun range, who reports seeing more interest in open carry. "It says I have the right to keep and bear arms."

Armed, not ordinary

For Bubba McDowell, a blogger in Zebulon who considers the 2nd Amendment the most important part of the Bill of Rights, owning a gun is both a right and a serious responsibility.

He started open carrying 33 years ago and only got a concealed permit last year. People ask him about his gun every day, he said. When a Best Buy employee asked whether he was a police officer, a military man or an ordinary civilian, he replied, "I'm not an ordinary civilian. I'm an armed civilian."

"The usual question is 'Are you an undercover police officer?' because I have long hair and a beard," he said. "It's part of my wardrobe. As I put my belt in the loop. The pistol holster is part of the loop."

There is nervousness about open-carry, even among lifelong gun folks. Shuford will wear a gun in a grocery store, especially in the summer when it's harder to conceal. But the possibility of someone reacting badly to the sight of a gun is always there, so he limits the habit.

At Perry's Gun Shop in Wendell, Barry Perry reports heavy interest in concealed handguns, showing off rows of pistols designed for that purpose in his display case. Most gun owners don't want people to feel intimidated by a weapon out in the open, he said. Others worry that open carry is too extreme and likely to generate a backlash that cuts into other firearms laws. More, even passionate gun advocates, doubt open carry's effectiveness as a crime deterrent.

Even Valone, who advocates removing many of the restrictions attached to North Carolina's concealed carry law, has doubts. If somebody were robbing a convenience store in which he were buying a soda, Valone said, he'd rather they not know he was carrying a gun. It takes away the element of surprise.

Regardless, he advised, an open carrier needs to know the law. You can't take a gun anyplace where admission is charged or alcohol is served.

And when Dye led a protest last week outside Rep. Bob Etheridge's office in downtown Raleigh, he carried no piece on his hip - verboten at a public demonstration.

"We do our best to follow the law," Dye said. "We don't always agree with it.

"

Gun Control and Mass Murders

Washington Times

It wasn’t supposed to happen in England, with its very strict gun-control laws. And yet last week, Derrick Bird shot twelve people to death and wounded eleven others in the northwestern county of Cumbria. A headline in the London Times read: “Toughest laws in the world could not stop Cumbria tragedy.”

But surely this was an aberration. Because America has the most guns, multiple-victim public shootings are an American thing, right? No, not at all. Contrary to public perception, Western Europe, most of whose countries have much tougher gun laws than the United States, has experienced many of the worst multiple-victim public shootings. Particularly telling, all the multiple-victim public shootings in Western Europe have occurred in places where civilians are not permitted to carry guns. The same is true in the United States: All the public shootings in which more than three people have been killed have occurred in places where civilians may not legally bring guns.

Look at recent history. Where have the worst K–12 school shootings occurred? Nearly all of them in Europe. The very worst one occurred in a high school in Erfurt, Germany, in 2002, where 18 were killed. The second-worst took place in Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996, where 16 kindergartners and their teacher were killed. The third-worst, with 15 dead, happened in Winnenden, Germany. The fourth-worst was in the U.S. — Columbine High School in 1999, leaving 13 dead. The fifth-worst, with eleven murdered, occurred in Emsdetten, Germany.

It may be a surprise to those who believe in gun control that Germany was home to three of the five worst attacks. Though not quite as tight as the U.K.’s regulations, Germany’s gun-control laws are some of the most restrictive in Europe. German gun licenses are valid for only three years, and to obtain one, the person must demonstrate such hard-to-define characteristics as trustworthiness, and must also convince authorities that he needs a gun. This is on top of prohibitions on gun ownership for those with mental disorders, drug or alcohol addictions, violent or aggressive tendencies, or felony convictions.

The phenomenon is not limited to school attacks. Multiple-victim public shootings in general appear to be at least as common in Western Europe as they are here. The following is a partial list of attacks since 2001. As mentioned, all of them occurred in gun-free zones — places where guns in the hands of civilians are outlawed.

-Zug, Switzerland, Sept. 27, 2001: A man whose lawsuits had been denied murdered 14 members of a cantonal parliament.

-Tours, France, Oct. 29, 2001: Four people were killed and ten wounded when a French railway worker started shooting at a busy intersection.

-Nanterre, France, March 27, 2002: A man killed eight city-council members after a council meeting.

-Erfurt, Germany, April 26, 2002: A former student killed 18 at a secondary school.

-Freising, Germany, Feb. 19, 2002: Three people killed and one wounded.

-Turin, Italy, Oct. 15, 2002: Seven people killed on a hillside overlooking the city.

-Madrid, Spain, Oct. 1, 2006: A man killed two employees and wounded another at a company that had fired him.

-Emsdetten, Germany, Nov. 20, 2006: A former student murdered eleven people at a high school.

-Tuusula, Finland, Nov. 7, 2007: Seven students and the principal killed at a high school.

-Naples, Italy, Sept. 18, 2008: Seven dead and two seriously wounded in a public meeting hall. (This incident is not included in the totals given below because it may have involved the Mafia.)

-Kauhajoki, Finland, Sept. 23, 2008: Ten people shot to death at a college.

-Winnenden, Germany, March 11, 2009: A 17-year-old former student killed 15 people, including nine students and three teachers.

-Lyon, France, March 19, 2009: Ten people injured when a man opened fire on a nursery school.

-Athens, Greece, April 10, 2009: Three people killed and two injured by a student at a vocational college.

-Rotterdam, Netherlands, April 11, 2009: Three people killed and one injured at a crowded café.

-Vienna, Austria, May 24, 2009: One dead and 15 wounded in an attack on a Sikh temple.

-Espoo, Finland, Dec. 31, 2009: Four people shot to death at a mall.

-Cumbria, England, June 2, 2010: Twelve killed by a British taxi driver.

So how does this compare with the United States? Bill Landes at the University of Chicago and I have collected data on all the multiple-victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1999 (for a discussion of that information, see the just-released updated third edition of More Guns, Less Crime). If one looks at just those cases where four or more people have been killed in an attack, on average 10.6 people died in such attacks each year; the worst attack was the Luby’s Cafeteria shooting in Killeen, Texas, in 1991, in which 23 people died.

I don’t have exactly comparable data for Europe; however, the data I have been able to collect for the nine and a half years from 2001 through now indicate that on average some 12.5 people per year have died in such attacks. To be sure, Western Europe has a lower per capita rate, since its population over the last decade has been about 48 percent larger than the U.S. population over the earlier period (about 387 million to 262 million). Still, the fact that there are such attacks at all belies the conventional wisdom.

Large multiple-victim public shootings are exceedingly rare events, but they garner massive news attention, and the misperceptions they produce are hard to erase. When I have been interviewed by foreign journalists, even German ones, they usually start off by asking why multiple-victim public shootings are such an American problem. And of course, they are astonished when I remind them of the attacks in their own countries and point out that this is not an American problem, it is a universal problem, but with a common factor: The attacks occur in public places where civilians are banned from carrying guns.

More Liberal "Non-Violence"

Fox8.com

 

GREENSBORO, N.C. - A protest in Greensboro turned violent Tuesday when a former candidate for Congress and NC Senate was punched in the face.

Nathan Tabor, a business owner and head of the Forsyth County Republican Party and a former candidate for public office, says he and 25 other people were protesting government bailouts in front of Rep. Mel Watt's (D-N.C.) Greensboro office on Tuesday.

"We were just there to do our constitutional right to have a peaceful protest." Tabor said.

Tabor says they were protesting a proposed amendment that would give companies money to help with rising credit card fees. He says he was videotaping the event when Govenor Spencer, of Greensboro, approached the protest.

"About that time a gentleman walks around the corner and walks into the middle of the crowd saying it's all George W. Bush's fault. It's all Dick Cheney's fault." Tabor said.

The video shows Spencer and at least one protester arguing. Tabor says he stopped recording as the protest began to conclude and walked over to the sidewalk where his wife and 5-year-old daughter were standing.

"As I walked around the corner this gentleman pushed me. And when he pushed me the first time I turned my camera on and brought my camera up. I said please don't push me. And when I said that he slapped my camera." Tabor said. "He pushes me again. In the video you can see my body fall back. And I did not say anything to him, I didn't engage him. I was going to, until he touched me wife."

Tabor says Spencer pushed his wife and he pushed Spencer back. The video shows Spencer then punching Tabor in the face.

In the video, Spencer is seen telling Tabor that he hit him because Tabor pushed him. Spencer denies hitting Tabor's wife. Both men have filed assault charges against each other.

Spencer referred FOX8 to his attorney Joe Williams, who said: "We are going to deal with this in the courtroom. Mr. Tabor is going to find out that being wealthy doesn't make a difference in a courtroom."

Robocop's Comment:

That Libtard forgot to state that it is ok to hit as long as it is a Liberal doing it. Both men were charged with assault. Mr. Tabor on the other hand should have never been charged. This is an obvious case of a one sided assault, not a fight. The magistrate is injecting politics into his job. Big surprise there. I hope it works out for Mr. Tabor.

The Tide Turns In The Battle For Gun Rights

Examiner.com

The tide turns in the battle for gun rights as the Brady Campaign withers away

As gun rights activists await the upcoming decision in the McDonald vs. Chicago Supreme Court case, new evidence emerges that, in this post-Heller decision world, the public has soured on the bitter taste of gun control.

The latest evidence of the declining public support for restrictions on gun rights is in the data released today by the Federal Election Commission on the private donations and expenditures of the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence - Voter Education PAC

The Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence is the flagship group for the gun control effort. The Brady Campaign absorbed the Million Mom March in 2001 when that organization's membership dropped so low as to be no longer self-sustaining.

Information provided by the Center for Responsive Politics , and derived from the FEC reports, shows that the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence - Voter Education PAC, raised an all-time high of over $1.7 million in the 2000 election cycle and distributed over $1.6 million of those funds.

Contrast this to the more recent 2008 election cycle where the PAC raised just over $15,000 and spent just over $54,000.

The 2010 election cycle is still ongoing, but the numbers look no better: So far only $2,500 has been raised and just $4,545 spent.

Browsing through the charts and information at the Center for Responsive Politics shows fewer gun control advocates willing to spend their own money on that agenda. In the 2000 election year cycle 320 individual donors gave a total of $329,996. Contrast that to 2008 where three donors donated a total of $15,000.

So far, for the 2010 election cycle, only one donor has made a single contribution of $2,500.

As the Brady Campaign goes, so does public support for gun control. That's why the huge drop in funds raised, money spent, and individual donors is so telling.

The conclusion is clear: The public no longer believes the gun control lies. Now is the time to work to get that message to the government by redoubling efforts to elect pro-gun candidates and kick out those politicians who would deny us our basic human rights.

Royal Douche 06.13.10

The Winner: Wilder Publications

The Reason: Placing warning labels on copies of the US Constitution, Declaration Of Independence, and Federalist Papers that read:

"This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today.might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work."

This is yet another libtard attempt to belittle these important documents to forward a progressive social/political agenda. Too bad people could actually see through this effort.

Ambushed Florida Father in Shootout with Robbers

A Place To Rob

Oregon Police Officer Asked to Leave Vegan Coffee Shopp

The Red & Black Cafe is no place for a man in blue.

Police Officer James Crooker was asked to leave the vegan coffee shop in Portland, Ore., last month, a discriminatory move but not altogether uncommon at the java joint, a detective told FoxNews.com.

Crooker, 36, a 2-year veteran of the force, entered the Red & Black Café on May 18 and bought a cup of coffee before a customer approached him and said she appreciated his efforts.

That's when John Langley, one of the co-owners of the collectively managed shop, approached the cop and asked him to leave.

Crooker left immediately. It was the first time something like this has happened to him in his nine-year law enforcement career, he told The Oregonian newspaper.

"The places that I've been kicked out of before have been places like the methadone clinic," he said. "You're there to protect them, but on the other hand they don't know what that involves. Being gracious is part of it."

Detective Mary Wheat, a spokeswoman for the Portland Police Department, characterized the incident as a "fluke" but noted the city's ongoing tension between the police and some members of the community.

"This is Portland," Wheat told FoxNews.com. "We have been dealing with that for years and years and years. It's a very liberal city. We have anarchists here and we deal with them on a regular basis."

The coffee shop attracts homeless individuals and activists, the newspaper reported, and Wheat said it is known to be "not friendly" to officers who work the area.

"Most officers would know that this is not a coffee shop that's friendly to police," she said. "It's obviously discrimination to police. He works that area and he can't go in for a cup of coffee -- it's not fair."

The customer who approached Crooker, Cornelia Seigneur, is a freelancer for The Oregonian who blogged about the incident on her website.

"As I spoke with the café owner, I really never got a direct answer as to why he personally felt unsafe with a police officer in his establishment," Seigneur wrote. "Bottom line, I think especially of the policeman I met at the red and black, Officer James Crooker, a human being who should be treated with respect and honor, like all human beings."

Neither Crooker nor Langley could be reached for comment on Friday. An employee who answered the phone at the Red and Black café declined to discuss the incident.

"I've been taking calls about this all day and I'm kind of tired of talking about it," the employee said. "I have a regular job."

Robocop's Comment:

There you have it. To all criminals, this IS the place to rob. Who are they going to call if you come in, draw a weapon, and announce the stick up? For who will the police take their time in responding for? Go right in, and have your fill of free java. They are located at 400 SE 12th Avenue, Portland, OR. Give them a call to announce your intentions at 503-231-3899. You can even e-mail them at redandblackbooking@riseup.net.

D-Day 06.06.44

Another Reason To Love Arizona

Arizona Daily Star

Gloria DiCenco was chatting amiably with a few Italian speakers at Beyond Bread on North Campbell Avenue on April 20 when armed men began coming in.

First there were two, then more. Finally, maybe 20 people carrying holstered guns and, in some cases, ammunition, arrived and ordered food, DiCenco said. A hush fell over the restaurant, she said, and her group's happy mood turned tense.

It happened that her Italian conversation club crossed paths with a group of local advocates of "open carry" - unconcealed carrying of firearms. And the open-carry advocates saw their Beyond Bread dinner quite differently - as noticeably unremarkable.

"That's the whole point - nothing happened," said J.D. "Duke" Schechter, who was among the group of gun carriers.

As Arizona's gun laws grow more liberal, business owners, employees and customers are increasingly confronting the issue of firearms in private businesses. In Arizona, a business may prohibit firearms on its premises, but some have found that doing so alienates customers who may have been carrying weapons concealed all along, or who simply believe in the right to bear arms. A less organized cadre of customers, like DiCenco, wonder why people feel the need to carry guns everywhere.

Facing the firearms issue is something many business people, including Beyond Bread owner Shelby Collier, would rather not do.

"We're really trying to take a neutral position," Collier said. "To the extent that that becomes a problem, I may have to take a position. I hope it doesn't come to that."

The issue didn't begin with Arizona's new concealed weapons law, which as of July 29 will allow people over age 21 (and not prohibited from possessing a weapon) to carry a concealed gun without a permit. However, it's become more pronounced as business owners realize how many people are carrying firearms, and as gun-rights advocates push for public acceptance.

Pro-gun website

One locally based website, www.GunBurger.com maintains databases of restaurants that prohibit and permit firearms. The site encourages gun owners to "vote with your dollars" when they encounter gun-prohibiting businesses and "take your business elsewhere."

The Arizona Citizens Defense League, a nonprofit group that supports expanding gun owners' legal rights, provides templates of business-sized cards on its website that users can print out to hand to business owners who prohibit firearms. Under a logo indicating no guns means no money, the cards say "You have made a decision to ban guns in your store. I am going to respect that decision and take my gun and my money to a competing business."

Pro-gun arguments have worked with some Tucson restaurant owners. The Hungry Fox, a bustling diner at 4637 E. Broadway, put up a sign prohibiting guns last year but quickly heard protests from customers who, unknown to the restaurant's owners and employees, were concealed-weapon carriers. The restaurant's management quickly reversed the policy.

"We were going to lose a lot of customers, and we can't afford to lose even one," said Dene Little, the restaurant's manager.

Even at bars, the question of whether to prohibit firearms isn't totally clear. Under state law, bar owners may permit firearms or prohibit them. For alcohol-serving establishments, state law dictates the wording, appearance and placement of signs prohibiting firearms.

Nelson Miller, owner of the Trident Grill, 2033 E. Speedway, put up such a sign last year. A retired Navy SEAL, Miller said he did so because "I don't trust other people with them (guns) as much as I trust myself."

But then he started talking to people who convinced him that the sign would not stop someone with evil intent from carrying a gun inside, and could make innocent people more vulnerable.

"The only person who cares about the rules is the guy who cares about the rules," Miller said. "I would just simply lose customers who were abiding by the law."

activists disagree

Anti-gun-violence activists dispute the notion that "law-abiding" gun carriers pose no risk. No one knows when a formerly law-abiding citizen will either break the law or otherwise misuse a firearm, said Daniel Vice, senior attorney at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

"Any time you have loaded weapons ready to fire, you increase the chance that someone will get shot," Vice said. "That can lead to accidents or shootings in the heat of the moment. Any argument can quickly escalate to a life-or-death situation if there's a loaded gun."

Customers and business owners aren't the only people who should be concerned, Vice noted. For employees, he said, the question of whether firearms are permitted could affect their workplace safety.

Starbucks, which has been at the center of a debate over firearms in businesses this year, has decided to allow guns in its stores in states where the law permits it. But it prohibits employees from carrying guns.

The policies apply only to Starbucks' company-owned stores, which make up about 61 percent of its 11,121 U.S. locations.

"Allowing guns into the workplace endangers their employees," said Vice, whose group is collecting signatures to ask Starbucks to change its policies.

He also called the company's policy disingenuous, because state law allows a business to prohibit firearms just as it may permit them.

In a statement, Starbucks said it doesn't want to put employees in the position of asking armed customers to leave.

discount offered

Beneath the debate over firearms in businesses lies a deeper disagreement over the place of firearms in society.

Many gun owners view carrying a firearm as a fundamental right - or even a responsibility - in that it allows for self-defense.

That belief helped underwrite Roy Schaefer's new business, Monkey Burger, at 5350 E. Broadway. A start-up investor made it a condition of his investment that Schaefer permit guns and give a 10 percent discount to concealed-carry permit holders.

Initially neutral on the issue, Schaefer has come to believe in the right to bear arms in public.

"I just feel that they're appropriate and should be allowed in the public with people who are responsible," he said.

He's planning to open a second restaurant, this one downtown, on Aug. 1. It will have the same firearm policies, Schaefer said.

But DiCenco, the Beyond Bread customer, said allowing guns can harm a business, too.

"I found it was pretty hard to have fun and joke in a room where there's a large group of people who are heavily armed."

key Arizona gun laws

• Guns in businesses: Arizona law does not explicitly permit or prohibit firearms in private businesses. But carrying a firearm into a private business might be considered trespassing if the business is clearly marked with a sign forbidding guns, especially if the gun carrier is asked not to enter while armed.

• Guns in bars: Establishments where alcohol is sold may permit firearms, but a person carrying a firearm in such a business may not consume alcohol. If the owner wishes to ban firearms, a sign with a specific design, wording and placement must be posted. The sign is available for downloading at the website of the Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, azliquor.gov/firearms.html

• Carrying a gun: As of July 29, anyone over 21 in Arizona may carry a gun, concealed or in the open, as long as the person is not a prohibited possessor, such as a felon or a visitor or student from another country.

• Where guns are prohibited: State law explicitly prohibits guns in certain places, most notably any posted government office, from the lowliest municipal building to the state Capitol, although they are now required to offer storage. Carrying a firearm is also prohibited on school grounds, at election polling places, and at hydroelectric or nuclear plants.

The U.N. Gun Grabber

Global Small Arms Treaty threatens your right to self defense

Washington Times

American gun owners might not feel besieged, but they should. This week, the Obama administration announced its support for the United Nations Small Arms Treaty. This international agreement poses real risks for freedom both in the United States and around the world by making it more difficult - if not outright illegal - for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

The U.N. claims that guns used in armed conflicts cause 300,000 deaths worldwide every year, an inordinate number of which are the result of internal civil strife within individual nations. The solution proposed by transnationalists to keep rebels from getting guns is to make the global pool of weapons smaller through government action. According to recent deliberations regarding the treaty, signatory countries would be required to "prevent, combat and eradicate" various classes of guns to undermine "the illicit trade in small arms." Such a plan would necessarily lead to confiscation of personal firearms.

This may seem like a reasonable solution to governments that don't trust their citizens, but it represents a dangerous disregard for the safety and freedom of everybody. First of all, not all insurgencies are bad. As U.S. history shows, one way to get rid of a despotic regime is to rise up against it. That threat is why authoritarian regimes such as Syria, Cuba, Rwanda, Vietnam, Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone endorse gun control.

Political scientist Rudy Rummel estimates that the 15 worst regimes during the 20th century killed 151 million of their own citizens, which works out to 1.5 million victims per year. Even if all 300,000 annual deaths from armed conflicts can be blamed on the small-arms trade (which they cannot), governments are a bigger threat to most people than their neighbors.

This U.N. treaty will lead to more gun control in America. "After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and it requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms," former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton warns. "The [Obama] administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context. ... They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn't otherwise."

The U.N. Small Arms Treaty opens a back door for the Obama administration to force through gun control regulations. Threats to the Second Amendment are as real today as ever.

© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times

Throwing Israel Under A Bus

Global Jihad Linked to Flotilla

Israeli defense officials now say dozens of passengers who were aboard the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara, the scene of a bloody showdown with Israeli commandos Monday, are suspected of having connections to terrorist organizations. The Israeli Army says it's identified 50 passengers on the ship with terrorist links.

It's known the flotilla of 6 ships was in part organized by the IHH group in Turkey, which reportedly has links to Al Qaeda. And three members of Yemen's Parliament, from the Islah Party, were also among the more than 600 activists detained by Israel after ships refused to stop for Israeli patrol boats and were boarded by Israeli Navy SEALs who eventually opened fire, killing 9 people. The Islah party is also said to have shadowy links to Al Qaeda. Both groups certainly support the Hamas organization in Gaza.

Israel believes the larger danger is that Turkey, a NATO ally, is becoming a foe of the U.S. and Israel. Israel's intelligence Chief, Meir Dagan, told top government ministers here that Turkish President Recip Tayyip Erdogan has "a dream of returning Turkey's dominance through going down the Islamic hall." He cites Turkey's warmer relations with the Palestinians and Hamas, and improving relations with Syria, Iran and others. Dagan described a new anti-Israel coalition. Turkey facilitated the flotilla and the Marmara is Turkish-flagged.

When Israeli commandos lowered themselves onto the deck of the Marmara they met a violent mob armed with bats, steel bars, knives -- and even guns ripped from Israeli troops who were beaten to the point they feared for their lives. Four of the Israelis were set upon, stabbed and shot, and are still in the hospital. Why then did Israel then send its Naval commandos down to the Marmara, armed mainly with paintball guns, into what was clearly much more than a mission of crowd control? The answer is Israeli commanders now admit it was a case of "bad equipment, bad tactics, and bad intelligence."

Had the team boarding the ship not been lowered one by one to be quickly overwhelmed by violent activists, had they been trained in crowd control, the outcome may have been much different, spared the bloody ending that now has the international community in uproar.

Even close allies are under pressure. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been wobbling between supporting Israel's right to defend its borders against Hamas smuggling and the need to show sympathy for 1.5 million Palestinians under a 3-year blockade struggling to get everything from medical supplies to food. Clinton won't condemn the blockade, even though Israel itself is increasingly questioning keeping it in place, considering that Hamas manages to smuggle arms from underground tunnels in Egypt regardless.

The defense official's claim a portion of the activists aboard the 6 ships had such serious links to extremist groups raises more questions about who in Israel ultimately approved the bungled plan to board the ships. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's inner cabinet is said to be fuming about not being consulted on the actual details of the raid and is demanding answers now. Israel's political leaders and top generals are trying to avoid taking responsibility for the "fiasco at sea," as one newspaper headline screamed here this week.

A top general told Israel's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee this week that Israeli commandos also used some "gray" tactics at sea on the other 5 ships, an indication they may have somehow disabled engines on the ships. But they decided not to do the same to the Marmara, the large cruise ship where most of the activists were, fearing they would create another kind of humanitarian problem by stranding hundred of activists at sea without food and water and creating a different kind of spectacle.

There are now two more ships on course to attempt to run the Israeli blockade on Gaza, arriving sometime later this week. This is a war for world opinion and Israel knows it. But an army source told me "we will also do everything necessary to stop these ships too." Israel still believes the blockade is necessary at any cost. But the price Israel is paying is still being tallied internationally in terms of weakened support in Europe and even in America.

Robocop's Comment:



According to the UN and American Libtards, these are "activists". Reality, Hamas is a terrorist organization, associated with the very people the United States is at war with. We routinely confront terrorists in international waters. Obama is throwing Israel, our best ally in the Middle East, under a bus. He has the practice.

British Gun Control Works...Not Really

12 Killings Confirmed In Cumbria Shootings

SNIP

Police have now identified the man they are hunting after a series of shootings along the Cumbrian coast this morning. They are looking for Derrick Bird, 52, of Rowrah near Frizington.

SNIP

The 25 injured are in “a range of conditions”, says DCC Hyde.

SNIP

Mr Reed told BBC Radio 4’s The World At One: “This kind of thing doesn’t happen in our part of the world. We have got one of the lowest, if not the lowest, crime rates in the country.

I bet the families of the victims feel so much better about that statistic.

SNIP

“The public were incredibly shocked. The public had never seen anything like this before.

Bullshit. Something like this did happen, and your government responded with one of the most draconian gun laws in the world. This really helped as you can see.

SNIP

From our calculations, the death toll appears to be as follows: two killed before Bird arrived in Whitehaven; two in Whitehaven; two in Egremont; three in Seascale; two in Haile; and one in Gosforth.These figures are provisional though, as they have been put together from witness statements and photographs.

Robocop's Comment:

How can this be? I thought it was virtually impossible for someone to get a firearm in Britain. I bet all of those law abiding former gun owners in Britain are feeling alot better knowing that the sacrifice of their gun rights was in vain. Consider this a lesson learned. All things being constant, Britain will probably pass more restrictive gun laws. Maybe a ban of guns in movies, illustrations, etc...Now I am willing to bet that if someone had a legally carried firearm the outcome would have been a different outcome. But this would be strictly fantasy seeing the reality of European socialism. My heart goes out to the victims and their families. May their deaths not be in vain. To those that left them defenseless, their blood is on your hands.

Illegal Immigrants Crime Spree in Washington State

Fox News

One woman is dead and two others were raped recently and police say each crime was committed by a different illegal immigrant. One of the sexual assaults happened just hours before the Seattle city council passed an ordinance boycotting Arizona over its new immigration law.

Gregorio Luna Luna had a history of beating up his live-in girlfriend Griselda Ocampo Meza. He was also in the U.S. illegally. On May 1, Luna Luna was deported to Mexico. Three weeks later Meza was murdered in her apartment in a violent knife attack.

Franklin County prosecutors say Luna Luna slipped past the border again and killed Meza in front of their five year old son. He's in the county jail awaiting trial.

A suspected rapist in Edmonds, Washington has been deported at least 4 times according to Snohomish County prosecutors. Jose Lopez Madrigal has been charged with raping a woman next to a dumpster behind a Safeway store. A witness to the attack alerted police and Madrigal was taken into custody.

An illegal immigrant just convicted of his possible 3rd strike in Whatcom county- a rape of a homeless woman- has been deported to Mexico five times.

Washington State ranks 11th in the nation in the number of illegal immigrants with an estimated 150,000. They make up 2% of the state's population, but account for 4.5% of those in Washington prisons. In Franklin county, 14% of the jail bookings are illegal immigrants.

Currently, over half of the individuals on the Washington State Patrol's Most Wanted List are suspected illegal immigrants. 18 of the 26 on the list are Hispanic with no place of birth identified. Most are wanted for vehicular homicide and they have languished on the Most Wanted list for several years.

There are about 50,000 felony warrants currently issued in Washington State and according to a source in the U.S. Marshall's office between 30-40 percent are believed to be illegal immigrants.

We asked the State Patrol about the immigration status of the most wanted suspects and they told us they didn't know. Officials say that information is not important in trying to locate the individuals.

The U.S. Marshall's Service disagrees. Leaders of the region's fugitive task force say knowing immigration status can be very important to an investigation. In fact, the Marshall's have an office in Mexico to help with cross-border cases.

Last week, the city of Tacoma joined Seattle in admonishing Arizona for its immigration law. While the council did not go so far as passing a boycott, the ordinance does criticize Arizona for its stand against illegal immigration.

Follow Up On Six Flags

Got a reply from Six Flags Texas regarding the gun tattoo incident:

Thank you for contacting Six Flags Over Texas.



The seasonal employee’s actions were inappropriate and we have addressed this matter with them. In addition we are in the process of reviewing our guest services policy with the employee to make sure they understand. Six Flags Over Texas representatives have since spoken with Ms. Osborn and apologized.



Please let me assure you that your comments have been shared with our Management Team, as we are continually striving to improve our Guest First experience.



Once again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. It is only with your input that we can build a lasting friendship with you and your family.



Have a Six Flags Day!



Tammy Montgomery

GSR Supervisor

Phone: 817-640-8900, ext. 3139

Fax: 817-607-6237