Life And Times Of A Turnkey (Political Blog)

We Remember

2010-09-11T00:10:00.000-05:00

Taking A Break

2010-08-15T13:15:00.001-05:00

I'll be taking a break from posting for awhile. Will be back sometime.

Beretta Pistols

2010-08-12T00:04:00.002-05:00

Gun Control Advocates Make Up Facts

2010-08-10T00:19:00.002-05:00

By John R. Lott Jr. as posted on Big Government.com

People walking the streets armed with guns must be dangerous, right? The Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center keep claiming that even those individuals who have legally obtained permits to carry concealed handguns are extremely dangerous. With millions of Americans already having been issued such permits from the various states, this is an important issue.

The gun control organizations have frequently made these claims in the press. The Associated Press articles by Erik Schelzig and by Jim Abrams have given extensive, uncritical coverage. Members of the gun control organizations have made these claims unchallenged on such places as Fox News and on the Huffington Post. But the gun control advocates inaccurately describe many shooting cases, choosing to ignore that the majority of incidents involve people properly defending themselves.

Over the past three years, the number of active permit holders in the United States has gone from about 5 million to more than 6.2 million today. The numbers issued by the state regulatory agencies show time after time that these permit holders abide by the law.

Take Florida, which currently has the most concealed handgun permit holders in the country and is one of the two most populous states with right-to-carry laws. Between Oct. 1, 1987, and May 31 this year, permits had been issued to 1.8 million people. On average, the permits had been held for quite a long time, well over 10 years. For all those individuals across the more than 22 years of legal carry, there were only 167 cases where the permit was revoked for a firearms related violation, or about 0.01 percent of permit holders. While the state doesn’t provide a precise breakdown of the reason for those revocations, the vast majority were apparently for people who accidentally carried their concealed handgun into a gun-free zone, such as an airport or school.

Throughout the past 30 months, beginning January 2008, only three additional permit holders have had their permit revoked for a firearms-related violation. With more than 739,000 active permit holders, that is an annual revocation rate of 0.00017 percent.

In sharp contrast, the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center portray Florida as Ground Zero for problems with concealed handgun permit holders. They boldly assert that 17 Florida permit holders have “killed” people with their guns over the past three years and that this one state by itself accounts for 17 of the 96 “killer” permit holders nationwide. The other 79 cases are scattered across 26 other states, with no other state accounting for more than 10 cases. Florida is also said to account for 2 of the 7 cases where permit holders are said to have killed law enforcement officers.

So what is the evidence? The gun control groups don’t actually point to actual court cases. They look at news stories and selectively report what is reported in those stories. For Florida, there are eleven “pending cases.” The gun control groups assume that anyone involved in a shooting will be convicted. Indeed, in 7 of the 11 cases no one was even charged with a crime. Three cases involved suicides, and three had convictions for some type of offense. (See this link for a detailed presentation of sources.)

But there is something that the gun control advocates conveniently omit: When a permit holder uses a gun defensively and kills an attacker in a public place, the police often arrest them. Typically, he will later be released, but the police must first investigate what happened. The police can’t just take the shooter’s word for it that they used the gun defensively.

Take the four pending cases where charges were filed, two of which involved the “killing” of law enforcement.

– Humberto Delgado, Jr. was charged with the death of a police officer. Delgado obviously engaged in a horrible crime, but there is one major problem with the stories as presented by the gun control groups. He also was charged with carrying a concealed firearm. If he had a concealed handgun permit, he obviously couldn’t have been charged with this crime. Delgado was just your typical criminal, who didn’t have a permit, who killed a police officer.

– James Wonder was charged with the death of an off-duty Customs and Border Protection Agent Donald Pettit. Pettit is said to have engaged in road rage against Wonder and then followed Wonder’s car into a Post Office parking lot solely to continue harassing Wonder. Pettit had over shot the parking lot and had to circle back to go into it. He had no intention to do business with either the Post Office or any other nearby business. Pettit was clearly the aggressor in the situation. The Sun-Sentinel newspaper wrote on August 29, 2008: “local lawyers said [Wonder] may be able to make a strong claim under Florida law that he was within his rights to shoot Pettit.” One measure of the severity of the case is that Wonder was released on a very minimal bond of $10,000. Neither the Brady Campaign nor the Violence Policy Center noted these points in their discussion of the case.

– Gabriel Mobley shot two people outside a bar, and the gun control groups’ discussions fail to mention the defensive nature of Mobley’s actions. A friend of Mobley’s had an argument with two other men in a bar. Mr. Mobley separated the men, but the two waited outside and Mobley’s lawyer, Richard Della Ferra, told me that they pounced on Mobley and his friend as soon as they left the bar. Witnesses saw one of the two attackers throw a punch that shattered the friend’s eye socket. Mobley says that he shot when he thought one of the two men was reaching for a weapon, and police found the DNA of one of the men on a steak knife at the scene.

– On January 7, 2008, Adam Hill was accused of accidentally firing his gun, the bullet fatally striking a friend while the friend had visited Hill to use his washing machine. Since the case has yet to go to trial, the law office that is representing Hill was unwilling to discuss the case, but they did say that the news articles did not accurately represent what had happened in the case. The law office representing Hill in his legal case emphasized to me in a telephone discussion that news articles on these cases can be quite misleading because defense lawyers warn their clients not to talk to others about their case, including the press.

Two of the three convictions in Florida are quite different than what gun control groups represent. One involved a boyfriend who accidentally shot his girlfriend when he was showing her how to use a gun in her home. There was no evidence of arguing or any disagreement. In another case, the issue was whether the permit holder had done enough to avoid the confrontation. A convicted felon confronted the permit holder. According to newspaper accounts, even the prosecutor acknowledged: “Kallenbach was in some way defending himself during an escalating altercation between the men caught on the security video” and that “People can look at that tape and interpret it two or three different ways.”

While this discussion focuses on Florida, the just released third edition of More Guns, Less Crime provides a detailed analysis for all states from 1990 to July 1, 2008. In state after state, permit holders are extremely law-abiding. In Arizona, there were 99,370 active permits as of December 1, 2007. During 2007, 33 permits were revoked for any reason — a 0.03 percent rate. In Texas, there were 288,909 active permit holders. Of these, 160 were convicted of either a misdemeanor or a felony, a rate of 0.05 percent. That is about one-seventh the conviction rate in the general adult population, and the convictions among permit holders are for much less serious offenses.

I went to some other cases from the gun control groups after July 1, 2008. In two of the other five killings involving law-enforcement, it also appears as if the person who fired a gun didn’t have a concealed handgun permit. In one case, in Pennsylvania, Christina Korbe fired a shot killing a police officer when police raided her home. The police were serving an arrest warrant on her husband, and she didn’t know it was the police who were breaking into her home, and she was concerned about the safety of her two children, ages 4 and 10.

The Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center evaluate the benefits of concealed handgun laws based solely on the claimed costs — they don’t compare the cases where defensive uses occurred to the bad things that happen, but only count what they claim are the bad cases. They ignore lots of amazing defensive gun use cases. But even more bizarrely, they count legitimate self-defense cases as bad events even when no charges are filed or the permit holder is later exonerated.

Glock Pistols

2010-08-08T00:46:00.000-05:00

Mayor defends gun law with bayonet?

2010-08-06T00:16:00.000-05:00

NOTE: This article was written before our historic victory in the McDonald V. Chicago case.

Shotgun News

By Vin Suprynowicz

Mayor defends gun law with bayonet? As an 80-year-old Korean War veteran, his wife and great-grandson slept in their home in the Humboldt Park neighborhood of Chicago just before dawn on May 26, a would-be burglar broke in a basement window, crawled over some discarded paint buckets, and made his way up winding stairs to an enclosed porch.

The intruder tried the knob of the locked door that led to the first-floor apartment. He then turned to the oversized glass window of the 80-year-old's bedroom, pulled out his gun and fired, police and family say.

But just as the man got off a second round, the homeowner, who had a handgun of his own, fired a single shot, killing the intruder.

"He missed, (but) my daddy didn't," said the 80-year-old's son, Butch Gant, who lives upstairs.

"My father had no choice. It was him or the other guy."

The shooting came as the U.S. Supreme Court was expected to rule by the end of June on Chicago's decades-old ban on possessing handguns. During oral arguments in March, the court's majority appeared to lean toward striking down the city ordinance. That means they're expected to rule—again—that residents have a constitutional right to keep a handgun at home.

(How many times do they have to issue the same ruling before it's assumed to apply in every American city? Don't ask me.)

Chicago police have long aggressively tried to disarm the law-abiding public, saying firearms are the principal weapons used in murders and gang violence.

But the Chicago Tribune reported many in that city echoed the feelings of the victim's family that if he hadn't been armed, the encounter could have ended in their deaths.

"He saved our lives," the man's wife, 83, who had been asleep with her husband when the window shattered, told the Tribune.

Police let the Korean War veteran, who walks with the aid of a cane, go without filing immediate charges because it appeared he acted in self-defense, according to police sources.

But they took away his handgun, which he had bought after being robbed just six months earlier, vowing not to be a victim again, his family said.

The dead intruder was later identified by his family as Anthony "Big Ant" Nelson, 29, on parole since December following a three-year prison sentence for a drug conviction. Nelson had a 13-page rap sheet that includes a number of drug and weapons convictions dating to 1998, according to police and court records. He lived less than a mile from where he died.

If gun laws could do any good at all, surely they'd block ex-cons with 13-page rap sheets from going armed.

"They did the right thing," said neighbor Audrey Williams, 75, of the shooting. "If anyone tried to come in on me, I'd do the same thing." Ms. Williams described the assaulted family—whose names were withheld by police as crime victims—as "sweet people who don't bother anyone."

"How are we going to protect our homes without guns?" asked Gant, the son. "That gun law should be abolished."

Fortunately, thanks to the Illinois legislature's override of indicted Gov. Rod Blagojevich's veto of state Senate Bill 2165 in November, 2004, the Army veteran should not face prosecution, report Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman of the Bellevue, Wash.-based Second Amendment Foundation.

That was the "Hale DeMar" act, which protects homeowners who shoot in self-defense even if there's a local ordinance against handgun possession.

DeMar shot a burglar in his Wilmette home and was initially charged for violating that community's handgun ban, but public outrage forced the Cook County prosecutor to drop the charge.

"The question remains in this case whether the old gentleman will get his gun back from the police when the investigation is completed," Gottlieb and Workman note.

Shortly before this latest incident of righteous self-defense, at a May press conference, Mick Dumke, a reporter from the alternative weekly Chicago Reader, asked Chicago Mayor Richard Daley what should have been an obvious question, reports our friend John Lott at the National Review Online.

"Since guns are readily available in Chicago even with a ban in place, do you really think it's been effective?" the reporter asked.

Daley's response "wasn't very helpful," Lott, an economist, reports. "Picking up a very old rifle with a bayonet that had been turned in during one of Chicago's numerous gun buybacks, Daley blustered: 'Oh, it's been very effective. If I put this up your butt, you'll find out how effective it is. ... This gun saved many lives—it could save your life.'"

Reporters greeted Daley's outburst with a moment of stunned silence. But it wasn't Daley's answer that was important, Lott points out. "The novelty is that a reporter actually questioned Daley on whether the gun ban had failed."

Even mainstream television news is questioning the gun ban. A broadcast on Chicago's CBS-TV in May noted:

"They are law-abiding citizens in Chicago, but they are so worried about their own safety, they say they might have to break the law. The last straw was the death of Chicago Police officer Thomas Wortham IV last week. That has some African-American families in Chicago considering doing something they never would have done before: carry a pistol. CBS 2's Jim Williams reports he grew up among those families and he's never (seen) anything like it. Many Chicagoans have been upset for some time about violence here, but Wortham's murder has touched a raw nerve in the black community. Now some want to do more than simply call 911 or march for peace in the streets. They want their own gun...."

Gun ban supporters often argue their city-by-city efforts have failed to reduce crime because of the ease of getting guns in nearby jurisdictions,. Lott pointed out in a separate piece for FoxNews.com on May 25.

"Yet, even in island nations such as Ireland, the U.K., and Jamaica-all of which have imposed bans-their easily defendable borders and lack of obvious neighbors haven't stopped drug gangs from getting either drugs or the guns that they use to protect their valuable product.

"Do gun bans really stop criminals from getting guns? Americans need not look no further than the massive gun battle with armed gangs fighting police and soldiers that took place in Kingston, Jamaica today,î Lott noted. "At least 30 people were killed in the fighting. It is a huge number for a small island nation of fewer than 3 million people, but unfortunately murder is so common in Jamaica that these murders won't even be noticed in the annual crime numbers."

Jamaica wasn't always such an extremely violent country. Jamaica experienced large increases in murder rates after enacting a handgun ban in 1974. In fact, Jamaica's murder rate hasn't sunk below 10 murders per 100,000 people since the gun ban went into effect.

Taxi driver Derrick Bird drove his vehicle on a shooting spree across a tranquil stretch of northwest England on June 2, methodically killing 12 people and wounding 25 others by shooting each of them in the face with a shotgun, before turning the gun on himself, officials said.

The rampage in the county of Cumbria was Britain's deadliest mass shooting since 1996.

None of the victims had any chance to defend themselves, because England has banned the possession of handguns for self-defense. (Even rural farmers need to state a "reason" to be allowed to keep a shotgun.)

Maybe the cantankerous cabbie's victims were supposed to dash home to grab a bow and arrow (or have those been banned, too?)

The body of the suspected gunman, 52-year-old Derrick "Birdie" Bird, was found in a wooded area near Boot, in England's scenic Lake District. Police said two weapons were recovered.

Eight of the wounded were in hospitals, three in critical condition, as of the next day. Home Secretary Theresa May told the House of Commons on June 3 the British government would wait until police had finished investigating the deadly attacks before debating whether UK gun laws needed to be..."

Wait for it...

"needed to be tightened," the Home Secretary said.

What are they going to take away from law-abiding prospective English murder victims next ... scissors?

Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the daily Las Vegas Review-Journal, and author of Send in the Waco Killers and the novel The Black Arrow. See www.vinsuprynowicz.com/.

Royal Douche 08.04.10

2010-08-04T00:04:00.004-05:00

THE WINNER: Attorney General Eric Holder

REASON: Failure to protect voters rights in this country. Voting is the only non-violent recourse citizens have to control this Republic. Mr. Holder is doing everything in his power to control this. Two actions in particular include his decision to ignore the Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case, and the choice to ignore the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act. Anything for his boy Obama to win a second term.

Pro-Gun Dems May Get a Boost

2010-08-02T00:30:00.003-05:00

Fox News

With the mid-terms looming large in a year where incumbents are expected to take a beating at the polls many Democratic candidates are favoring gun rights, aiming to win endorsements or positive ratings from pro-2nd amendment groups.

University of New Hampshire Professor of Politics, Andrew Smith, says Democrats started moving away from a strong anti-gun stance in the 90's when many in the party blamed the issue on massive political losses in Congress.

"I think it started with the 1994 elections where a lot of Democrats believe it was the NRA involvement in that election which caused the Democrats to lose the House and the Senate. So they backed off that issue," said Smith.

The National Rifle Association, by far the most powerful pro-gun lobby in the country, spends massive amounts of money to protect the right to bear arms, donating cash to candidates and political action committees. While Republicans receive the majority of the organizations endorsements and money, over the last 10 years, the NRA has dramatically increased funding for Democratic candidates.

"I think finally the message hit home that it's bad politics to be on the wrong side of the 2nd amendment at election time and I think you see that reflective in what's been happening on this issue amongst Democrats in Washington, DC and state legislatures around the country." said Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association.

"Gun ownership in the country amid labor unions folks runs from a low of 48% in California to a high of 60, 70, 80% in states like Missouri, Tennessee, West Virginia. In the 2000 election, half of those union members had a firearm in their home voted for George Bush over Al Gore based on the gun issue and that cost Al Gore the presidency."

According to the center for responsive politics, a non-partisan group that tracks political spending, during the 2002 election cycle the NRA put 8% of their federal campaign contributions toward Democrats. This election cycle, they've received 26% percent.

Though the NRA has yet to release many key endorsements heading into the fall elections some major races could be affected when the word comes down. In the midst of a tough re-election campaign, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could get a boost as the NRA considers endorsing him.
In Indiana, Democratic Senate candidate Brad Ellsworth, a former sheriff, may win the organization's endorsement over Republican Dan Coats.

The slow political shift has frustrated some Democrats that have long fought for tougher gun laws, like New York Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, who's husband was killed in 1993 when a gunman randomly fired into a commuter train. She wishes fellow Democrats would fight the pressure exerted by the pro-gun lobby.

"They've been very open about saying... 'Carolyn, if the NRA comes against a bill, I gotta vote with the NRA.' They're not going to take that chance. I understand that," said McCarthy of her Democratic colleagues. "Does it bother me? Of course, it bothers me because I'm not trying to take away anyone's right to own a gun."

Depending on where a given candidate hails from, gun rights can be a major issue.

Take the "Live Free or Die" state of New Hampshire where hunting is popular and the 2nd amendment has long been prioritized as a critical personal liberty.

"It's a freedom issue and that's what this is about," said Mitch Kopacz, president of Gun Owners of New Hampshire. "It's the canary in the cage if you will, the firearms... for free speech and other issues. If we have firearms we still have the rest of our rights."

While a contingent of voters will cast ballots strictly adhering to which candidate supports firearm freedoms, many others will prioritize other matters.

"Because the economy is bad and when the economy is bad all other issues get pushed to the side, including the issues about guns," explains Smith. "So I think what you're seeing with Democratic candidates is that the party has moved away from that more doctrinaire position against 2nd amendment rights."

Robocop's Comment:

I remember s few Supreme Court nominies who where "pro-gun". I also saw how they voted in both the Keller and McDonald cases. I advise caution when a Dem with an anti-gun record becomes concerned for our gun rights all of a sudden. Yes, there are a few genuine pro-gun Dems out there. Just do your homework before you vote. If they have a pro-gun past, then they may be pro-gun. If they were pitching support for another "assault weapons" ban, then preach the virtues of the Second Amendment today, be skeptical. Remember the tale of the scorpion and the turtle.

U.N. threatens Second and First Amendments

2010-07-31T00:15:00.001-05:00

Washington Times

The United Nations is holding secret closed meetings to work out a global arms trade treaty. The agreement, which could be finished by 2012, is a threat to Americans' Second and First Amendment rights.

"Some type of micro-stamping regulations seems all but inevitable. It is very, very likely," the Heritage Foundation's Theodore R. Bromund, who tracks the U.N., told The Washington Times. "Restrictions on trade between private individuals are somewhat less than 50-50, but you surely can't rule that out. Some kind of gun registration and licensing system is an extremely likely probability." Registration proposals cover guns as well as individual rounds of ammunition.

The Obama administration strongly supports the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty and no doubt will use the process to push for gun-control regulations that it can't get through Congress otherwise.

A lot of baloney is floating in Turtle Bay. Gun registration is being promoted despite evidence that the costly bureaucratic system has been a complete failure in solving any crimes or stopping criminals from getting access to guns everywhere it's been tried. "None of these treaties have a relationship to reality," Mr. Bromund explains. "Terrorists are still going to have access to guns because governments give them guns, and they are still going to be able to give them guns." As an example, he pointed out, "The FARC fighting in Colombia get their guns from Venezuela."

As with everything that goes down at the U.N.'s headquarters on Manhattan's East River, America will pick up a disproportionate share of the tab to implement the treaty, with all those countries considered most "in need" taking another free ride. This is counterproductive even without the usual fraud and waste that hobble U.N. programs.

Gun rights aren't the only thing would-be globocops are targeting in the treaty. There is a U.N. discussion paper advancing "the reduction of violence in the media and in video games" as well as "sustained efforts at reeducation and reorientation of [member state] citizens." Whatever the plan, that can't be good for the First Amendment.

Any U.N. Arms Trade Treaty will undermine freedom around the world. The right to bear arms is an individual's protection against oppression anywhere. It took herculean efforts by George W. Bush's administration to thwart this U.N. power grab a few years ago. Unfortunately, we now have a left-wing White House working to make this dangerous treaty a reality.

© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times

Waiving the military's star-spangled rights

2010-07-29T00:22:00.001-05:00

Washington Times

About four brigades' worth of American military personnel lost the right to have their votes count in the 2008 elections.

It now appears that the Justice Department is willing to allow many of the same 17,000 Americans fighting for us overseas to be disenfranchised once again in November. Congress and the Defense Department need to step in to ensure this doesn't happen.

Military Voter Protection Project Director M. Eric Eversole accused his former employer, the Justice Department's Voting Section, of encouraging states to use waivers to get around a law Congress passed last year to address the problems with overseas voting. The statute requires that states mail absentee ballots to military personnel at least 45 days before an election, ensuring there is sufficient time for them to reach far-flung locales and be returned by Election Day. Waiving the law effectively denies a state's soldiers, sailors and airmen the ability to exercise the most basic right of citizenship.

Sen. John Cornyn brought up Mr. Eversole's charges in a meeting Wednesday with Defense Department officials responsible for ensuring military voting rights. The Texas Republican was one of the two lead sponsors of the legislation in question.

"I was very encouraged by what the Defense Department is doing in terms of marketing the new system to military and civilian personnel overseas," Mr. Cornyn told The Washington Times, singling out Clifford L. Stanley, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, for praise. "But the bureaucracies at both the federal and state levels are agonizingly slow. And I am concerned with the process by which waivers are being granted. I want to make sure [states] aren't being granted permission not to comply with federal law."

The authors of that law intended that the waivers be used in limited circumstances and only when other measures are taken to ensure the ballots are counted on time. "I want to make sure there is not a presumption that [states] don't have to comply," Mr. Cornyn explained. Because Defense officials show deference to the legal advice provided by the Justice Department, the waiver recommendations are troubling and deserve a full and complete investigation. Mr. Cornyn urged at a minimum that Justice officials require that states provide full transparency for all waiver applications, placing the relevant documentation online for public review.

Experts agree that the 45-day requirement provides a reasonable amount of time both for states to print ballots and for military personnel to return them in time for counting. Deviations from this new system should be extremely rare and subjected to close scrutiny. Unless that happens, the reasons for suspicion regarding the Justice Department's actions will be legion.

© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC.

Food For Thought-The Federal Courts

2010-07-28T14:01:00.002-05:00

When the Federal Courts fail to uphold the Constitution Of The United States, and uphold totalitarian policies, they render their own authority INVALID.

Liberalism In Practice

2010-07-28T11:05:00.000-05:00

DOJ Accused of Stalling on MOVE Act for Voters in Military

2010-07-28T09:08:00.002-05:00

Fox News

The Department of Justice is ignoring a new law aimed at protecting the right of American soldiers to vote, according to two former DOJ attorneys who say states are being encouraged to use waivers to bypass the new federal Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act.
fox news

The Department of Justice is ignoring a new law aimed at protecting the right of American soldiers to vote, according to two former DOJ attorneys who say states are being encouraged to use waivers to bypass the new federal Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act.

The MOVE Act, enacted last October, ensures that servicemen and women serving overseas have ample time to get in their absentee ballots. The result of the DOJ's alleged inaction in enforcing the act, say Eric Eversole and J. Christian Adams — both former litigation attorneys for the DOJ’s Voting Section — could be that thousands of soldiers' ballots will arrive too late to be counted.

"It is an absolute shame that the section appears to be spending more time finding ways to avoid the MOVE Act, rather than finding ways to ensure that military voters will have their votes counted," said Eversole, director of the Military Voter Protection Project, a new organization devoted to ensuring military voting rights. "The Voting Section seems to have forgotten that it has an obligation to enforce federal law, not to find and raise arguments for states to avoid these laws."

Adams, a conservative blogger (www.electionlawcenter.com) who gained national attention when he testified against his former employer after it dropped its case against the New Black Panther Party, called the DOJ’s handling of the MOVE Act akin to “keystone cops enforcement.”

“I do know that they have adopted positions or attempted to adopt positions to waivers that prove they aren’t interested in aggressively enforcing the law,” Adams told FoxNews.com. “They shouldn’t be going to meeting with state election officials and telling them they don’t like to litigate cases and telling them that the waiver requirements are ambiguous.”

The MOVE act requires states to send absentee ballots to overseas military troops 45 days before an election, but a state can apply for a waiver if it can prove a specific "undue hardship" in enforcing it.

Sen. John Cornyn,R-Texas – who co-sponsored MOVE – wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder on July 26 saying he is concerned that the Department of Justice is allowing states to opt out of the new law. Click here to read the letter.

“Military voters have been disenfranchised for decades, and last year Congress acted," Cornyn said in a statement to FoxNews.com. "But according to recent information, the Department of Justice has expressed reluctance to protect the civil rights of military voters under the new law. All our men and women in uniform deserve a chance to vote this November, and the Obama administration bears responsibility for ensuring that they have it.

“For far too long in this country, we have failed to adequately protect the right of our troops and their families to participate in our democratic process. The MOVE Act was supposed to end this sad history. The right to participate in democratic elections is fundamental to the American experience.”

In his letter to Holder, Cornyn cites minutes from the 2010 winter meeting of the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), during which Rebecca Wertz, deputy chief of the DOJ's voting section, told state election officials that the legislative language regarding waivers is not completely clear. Wertz described the provisions of the law as “fairly general” and “somewhat of an open question as to what type of information” a state needs to submit in order to for their waiver application to be granted. She said it was also unclear whether waivers are for one election only, or if they apply to future elections.

According to the meeting's minutes, obtained by FoxNews.com, Wertz also said “that the DOJ is working to find effective ways to disseminate any information guidance that can help states with different questions about MOVE interpretation. She invited questions and dialogue from states, and said that litigation is always the last resort.”

Cornyn wrote, “If these are the positions of the DOJ, then they fly in the face of the clear statutory language, undermine the provisions in question, and jeopardize the voting rights of our men and women in uniform.”

He said the language of the law makes it clear that there is no ambiguity when it comes to states' eligibility for being granted a waiver, and that the statute does not leave room for the Justice Department to decide whether to enforce its requirements.

“If a state is not in compliance with the statute, there is little room for “dialogue” or negotiation, and the Voting Section should take immediate steps to enforce the law and safeguard military and overseas voting rights, including pursuing litigation whenever necessary,” Cornyn wrote. “The comments by the DOJ official, as reported in the NASS minutes, appear to ignore Congress’ clear legislative language and could facilitate the disenfranchisement of our men and women in uniform.”

Cornyn, who discussed Eversole’s allegations at a meeting with Defense Department officials last week, called for Holder to immediately provide guidelines to state election officials; to ensure that states are required to abide by the law; and to provide Cornyn himself with a state-by-state breakdown of which states have already applied for waivers and which are expected to be in noncompliance with MOVE in the November midterm election. He also called for full transparency in the waiver process.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division, Xochitl Hinojosa, declined to comment, other than to say Cornyn’s letter is being reviewed.

FoxNews.com obtained waiver applications submitted by Washington and Hawaii.

Defense Department spokeswoman April Cunningham told FoxNews.com that New York, Delaware, Maryland, Alaska and Virgin Islands had also applied for waivers. (Cornyn's co-sponsor for the MOVE Act was New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, a Democrat.)

“The voting section has taken this haphazard approach to enforcing military voting law,” said Eversole. “The voting section is asserting itself into statute to make a statute that’s not ambiguous, ambiguous. Can you imagine any other agency giving prospective defendants advice like this?”

“Everybody in Washington knows it doesn’t matter how good the law is; it comes down to who’s enforcing it,” said Adams. “This stuff should be transparent and online for the citizens of these states to comment on, the fact that it's being done behind closed doors tells you everything you need to know about how it will affect the voters.”

Adams and Eversole separately pointed out that the DOJ’s website lacks any mention of the MOVE Act. In fact, the section on military voting includes the outdated and nonbinding 30-day recommendation for sending out ballots. There is no mention of the the current 45-day mandate.

But the DOJ's online voting section includes a detailed section devoted to helping felons learn how get their voting rights back.

“It is just offensive to most Americans that we can send soldiers to the front lines but they can't vote,” said Eversole. “This is an issue that tugs at the heartstrings of America and people can’t understand why we can’t get that right. This is something we have to get right. We should be fighting as hard for their rights as they’re fighting for ours.”

New Suit Against Mayor Richard Daley and the City of Chicago

2010-07-27T00:06:00.000-05:00

NRA-ILA

Tuesday, July 06, 2010

Fairfax, Va. -- The National Rifle Association is supporting a lawsuit against Mayor Richard Daley and the City of Chicago's newly adopted gun control ordinance, which violates the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago. Last Friday, the City Council rushed through passage of this ordinance in response to the Court's June 28th decision rendering Chicago’s draconian handgun ban unconstitutional.

“The Supreme Court has now said the Second Amendment is an individual freedom for all. And that must have meaning,” said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. “This decision cannot lead to different measures of freedom, depending on what part of the country you live in. City by city, person by person, this decision must be more than a philosophical victory. An individual right is no right at all if individuals can’t access it.”

Just four days after the Court struck down the nearly 30 year-long handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park, Mayor Daley and the City of Chicago enacted the most restrictive anti-gun ordinance in the United States. In the words of Corporation Counsel Mara Georges, the top attorney for the City: “We've gone farther than anyone else ever has.” The so-called “Responsible Gun Ownership Ordinance” provisions include: a prohibition on all gun sales inside the City; a prohibition on possession of firearms for self-defense outside the “home” -- even on a patio or in an attached garage; a prohibition on more than one assembled and operable firearm in the home; and a training requirement to obtain a Chicago Firearm Permit. However, range training would be impossible since it will now be unlawful to operate a shooting range inside city limits.

“The Supreme Court told Mayor Daley and the City of Chicago that it has to respect the Second Amendment. By enacting this ordinance, their response is 'Make Us',” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. “The NRA will not rest until Chicago's law-abiding residents can exercise the same freedoms that our Founding Fathers intended all Americans to have.”

Recent statements from some of Chicago's city officials reflect their complete lack of respect for the Supreme Court decision. Alderman Daniel Solis stated, “the decision made by the Supreme Court is not really in the best interests of our citizens.” Alderman Sharon Denise Dixon denounced what she called the Court’s “blatant… misreading of the law.” And another city council member even went so far as to say, “[w]e’re here today because of their poor judgment."

The case is Benson v. City of Chicago.

Robocop's Comment:

I HOPE this case can be determined BEFORE those two communists are confirmed for the Supreme Court.

3 Glocks In One

2010-07-23T09:18:00.000-05:00

Gun Websites

On being labeled as 'racist'

2010-07-22T00:37:00.001-05:00

By JENNY BETH MARTIN & MARK MECKLER

A clear pattern of behavior has emerged over the last 16 months. According to liberals, if you disagree with their thinking, and if you disagree with the Obama administration, you are not only wrong, you are a “racist.”

The latest strike by the left comes from the NAACP, which has resolved that the tea party movement is inherently “racist.” At its most simple, this is a direct attack on the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans.

The NAACP has long history of liberalism and racism.

If you are a conservative — including a conservative African-American — there is no room for you at the NAACP. If you have opinions that differ from the NAACP and the liberal establishment, and if you are African-American, you are an “Uncle Tom,” a “negro,” “not black enough” and “against our people.”

In other words, the NAACP fancies itself the thought police for millions of black Americans. Disagree with them and you will be ostracized and attacked. You will be subjected to public humiliation and racist commentary from NAACP leadership. The message is clear: Toe the line or pay the price.

But the NAACP does not stand alone in this regard. The left has a long history of using the race card. It has been pulled on people across the political spectrum.

President Bill Clinton was smeared as a racist by the Obama campaign when Hillary Clinton was running for president. It seems that anyone who disagrees with the far left, socialist policies of Barack Obama and the current administration is subject to the heavy hand of the race card.

This card is generally played when all else has failed. It was inevitable that it would eventually be used aggressively against the tea party movement.

First, members of the tea party movement were called disgruntled voters, then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said our movement was nothing more than "astroturf" and laughed us off as a flash in the pan that would disappear overnight.

Next the Democratic National Committee relased an ad calling us an “angry mob.” Now, we’re being called racist.

All these attacks have failed because they are untrue and the American people know it.
According to recent polling, more than 49 million people are active members of the tea party movement (Winston Group, April 1, 2010). More than 145 million people say that the tea party movement is a good thing for America (Rasmussen, June 2, 2010).

The Obama White House and liberal interest groups are hitting the panic button as they read weekly polls showing diminishing support for their radical big government issue agenda, and a weariness for the politics of division.

Like all movements, the tea party has its fringe. President Barack Obama’s domestic terrorist friends from the 1960’s anti-war past never represented the Americans of good conscience who opposed the Vietnam War. In a similar vein, the racist posters of a few at a Tea Party rally do not represent the feelings or behavior of Americans who believe in this movement.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would be proud of this movement. He dreamed of a colorblind society. The tea party is a truly post-racial movement. Based strictly around the three simple principles of fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free market capitalism, the movement is uninterested and uninvolved in the politics of race.

We are freedom loving Americans who have come together to express outrage against a government no longer of, for and by the people. Standing together as brothers and sisters in the fight to return America to its founding principles, skin color, religion, social status and even political party affiliation are irrelevant to the people involved in this movement.

These are the facts. And these facts have already withstood 16 months of liberal media scrutiny and bombardment.

Wednesday, the NAACP is again bringing up the completely falsified charges of racial epithets hurled at members of Congress during the debate leading up to the passage of Obamacare. Widely reported as fact by the liberal media, even an offered reward of $100,000 to anyone who could provide documentary evidence proving the charges could not coax videotape, audiotape or a single witness out of a crowd of thousands present on Capitol Hill that day.
The race card played again; and once again discarded by the American people.

When Kenneth Gladney, a black conservative activist was brutally beaten by SEIU thugs at a protest outside of Rep. Russ Carnahan’s (D-Mo.) office, the NAACP and the liberal left refused to intervene. To the contrary, at an NAACP press conference in St. Louis in May, Gladney was referred to as a “Negro,” an “Uncle Tom,” and someone not worthy of the protection of the NAACP, because he’s working for the “other side.”

The NAACP has defended the thugs who beat Gladney. At the press conference, money was raised for the defense of the “brothers.”

At Tea Party Patriots we will continue to condemn the fringe elements of the movement and any expression of racism or bigotry. We sincerely hope that the Obama While House, the NAACP, and the liberal left will follow our lead and do the same in their own ranks.

UPDATE: Authorities Shoot, Kill Child-Murder Suspect

2010-07-18T22:38:00.003-05:00

CBS 11

After a Sunday afternoon chase, police shot and killed the man believed to have kidnapped and murdered a four-year-old boy over the weekend, Mineral Wells Police Chief Mike McAllester confirmed.

Police believe Arturo Pacheco-Barrera, 23, kidnapped Salvador Briones Jr. Friday and demanded a $15,000 ransom from the family. He killed the boy and dumped his body 12 hours later, police believe.

This triggered a manhunt throughout Palo Pinto County involving state, local and federal agencies, which culminated in a Sunday afternoon chase.

Police tracked down Pacheco-Barrera to a private field off Dobbs Valley Road. Police said he was armed and shot by two officers after he refused to drop his weapon.

Police found the boy's body late Friday night near an abandoned house on the 3600 block of N. Highway 281.

"The way this thing ended was tragic the way it started was tragic," McAllester said. "Nobody's a winner with this one."

Officials did not issue an Amber Alert as they typically would as to not alert Pacheco-Barrera, who was a family friend, of the manhunt.

"Typically, Amber Alerts are for abductions where you have a known suspect and known vehicle and possible direction of travel," McAllester said. "That wasn't the case here."

But Pacheco-Barrera remained on the loose until Sunday. He was treated as a witness rather than a suspect so investigators could obtain more information about the case. He allegedly told investigators that he had an accomplice with him before guiding them to where he dumped the boy's body.

After locating the body, authorities said they transported him to his home to recover more evidence. He then evaded police officers until Sunday, when a tip alerted officers to his location.

"A citizen from Palo Pinto County about seven miles south of town called the sheriff and said a Hispanic male was seen on her property climbing her fence," McAllester said. "He was wearing a backpack and his general description matched that of what we were looking for."

After learning of Briones Jr.'s death, the boy's parents had to be hospitalized and sedated because of their intense grief.

"I hope they catch him," family member Linda Ramirez said Saturday. "I hope they catch him and he's going to pay. God's up there and he's going to take care of him. No child deserves that; none."

Police believe Pacheco-Barrera entered the home through a back door around 9 a.m. Friday. He took the boy while he slept, wrapped in a blanket.

His mother was asleep with her newborn child in another room of the house. Ramirez said Barrera was familiar with the outlay of the house, and often helped with renovations.

Residents said they felt suddenly unsafe, and many said they were leaving town until police found Pacheco-Barrera.

"We want to know what's going on," mother of six and Mineral Wells resident Raeann Lee said Saturday. "We don't feel safe anymore. Used to be able to sleep with your doors unlocked, now you can't."

Briones Jr. had an older brother, an older sister and a three-week old sister. The official cause of his death is pending autopsy results from the Dallas County Medical Examiner.

"His birthday was next month, he was going to start school," Ramirez said. "He didn't even get a chance to start school."

The Texas Rangers are now investigating the case and whether there was a second suspect involved. The two officers who fired the shots are on administrative leave pending the outcome of an investigation.

Four Year Old Boy Kidnapped And Murdered

2010-07-18T14:44:00.006-05:00

Mineral Wells Index

MINERAL WELLS, TX — As of Sunday morning there was no new information concerning the search for suspected child kidnapper and killer Arturo Pacheco-Barrera.

The 23-year-old Mineral Wells man is believed to have abducted 4-year-old Salvador Briones Jr. from his home in the 700 block of S.W. 4th Avenue early Friday morning. The child's body was found between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. Friday on the property of a vacant residence in the 3600 block of U.S. Highway 281 North.

The child's father, Salvador Briones, told police he had received a phone call after leaving for work Friday morning telling him his son had been abducted, with the caller demanding a $15,000 ransom for the child's safe return.

In an interview heard on KRLD-AM radio, Lt. Brad Belz admitted police had Pacheco-Barrera in custody. It was about four hours after the child's body was found that Pacheco-Barrera was able to flee officers while they were searching a residence in the 1800 block of S.E. 12th Street.

"We had him in custody but he was able to escape," Belz told the Dallas radio station.

A report on WFAA-TV says "investigators" reported Pacheco-Barrera had given himself up and led police to the boy's body then later escaped while police and SWAT team members were looking for evidence at the southeast Mineral Wells residence.

Police then issued a Code Red alert to residents in southeast Mineral Wells. A manhunt ensued through midday Saturday that included a police command post established in the parking lot of Church of God at Mineral Wells.

Police said Pacheco-Barrera should be considered extremely dangerous. Anyone with information about the suspect's whereabouts is asked to call 911.

Pacheco-Barrera is described as a Hispanic male standing 5 feet, 8 inches tall and weighing 190 pounds. He was last seen wearing a dark blue Polo-style shirt, blue jeans and brown leather boots.

Mineral Wells police have largely declined to answer questions or discuss the case with the Index. Police Chief Mike McAllester's only public comments so far came Friday afternoon when he said "we are investigating an alleged kidnapping." He said he could not comment further.

Law enforcement officials never issued an "Amber Alert" for the child Friday.

The case comes on the heels of what is now a nearly two-week search and investigation into the disappearance of Shonda Townsend, 19, of Gibtown, last seen leaving a Mineral Wells residence on U.S. Highway 180 West around midnight July 5. Her gray Toyota Camry was found about six hours later in the 800 block of S.E. 3rd Avenue. Activity on her cell phone ended about 2 a.m. that morning. There has been no trace of her since, and police appear to have few leads.

Robocop's Comment:

My prayers to this family who suffers. There will be a special place for this killer in hell. I would encourage all civic minded folk out there to smash this man on sight.

Smart Kid!

2010-07-18T08:49:00.000-05:00

BS Removal Kit

2010-07-17T22:30:00.000-05:00

Judge blasts Iowa sheriff for denying gun permit to man considered ‘weird’

2010-07-17T00:09:00.002-05:00

DesMoines Register

A federal judge has strongly chided an Iowa sheriff for denying a gun permit to a government watchdog and anti-abortion advocate who some community members considered “weird.”

It was wrong for Osceola County Sheriff Douglas Weber to deny Paul Dorr, an Ocheyedan father of 11 home-schooled children, a permit that would allow him to carry a concealed weapon, according to a court opinion issued Wednesday.

“The court finds a tsunami, a maelstrom, an avalanche, of direct, uncontroverted evidence in Sheriff Weber’s own testimony to conclude beyond all doubt that he unquestionably violated the First Amendment rights of … Paul Dorr,” wrote U.S. District Court Judge Mark W. Bennett of the Northern District of Iowa.

The judge continued: “This is a great reminder that the First Amendment protects the sole individual who may be a gadfly, kook, weirdo, nut job, whacko, and spook, with the same force of protection as folks with more majoritarian and popular views.”

The Dorr case, filed in October 2008, inspired some grassroots activists to push for changes in the state law that gives Iowa sheriff’s almost unlimited discretion to deny weapons permits.

After intense lobbying from Iowa gun rights advocates and the National Rifle Association, state lawmakers earlier this year approved legislation that spells out a narrow list of reasons why a sheriff can deny a permit. The new law takes effect Jan. 1, 2011.

In his ruling Wednesday, Bennett ordered the Osceola County sheriff to immediately issue Dorr a nonprofessional permit to carry a weapon.
The judge also ordered Weber to successfully complete a court-approved course on the United States Constitution within the next five months.

“In denying (Dorr) a concealed weapons permit, Sheriff Weber single-handedly hijacked the First Amendment and nullified its freedoms and protections,” Bennett wrote.

Weber, a Republican who has been either a deputy or a sheriff in Osceola County since 1979, has long known the Dorr family, court documents state.

“Through the years, Sheriff Weber heard comments about (Dorr) which related to him being ‘weird,’” court documents state. Weber also believed there were people in the county who were afraid of him.

Dorr has been arrested and convicted multiple times for a variety of non-violent offenses connected with protests at abortion clinics – such as blocking doors and praying, court records state.

His anti-abortion activities with a group called Rescue the Perishing stretched into South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Georgia and Virginia, records show.

Dorr has also written letters to the editors of newspapers and distributed flyers.

In spring 2007, Dorr made an open records request for information on the compensation and duties of the deputies in the Osceola County Sheriff’s Office.
He received the sheriff’s policy and procedure manual, but he was “also provided with a large bill for the copies,” the judge stated.

Dorr was billed for 90 minutes of photocopying, plus a fee of 10 cents per page for more than 200 pages of documents, court records state.

Dorr successfully obtained a gun permit from the late 1990s to 2006. Weber was sheriff for two of those years.

But in July 2007, Weber turned him down. Weber wrote on the denied application: “Concern from Public. Don’t trust him.”

Weber testified that after Dorr began to work with a group that challenged the county budget: “People started talking about it saying things like, ‘Oh, that guy’s a nut job. Oh, that guy’s whacko.’”

Dorr said he applied for the ability to carry a weapon because he supplemented his income by selling balloons along a parade route in Sioux City. This required him or his relatives to carry as much as $1,500 in cash in fanny packs.

In 2008, one of Dorr’s sons, Alexander, applied for a permit, saying he helped with the balloon business and had gotten death threats connected to his family’s anti-abortion advocacy. Weber denied the son’s permit and informed Dorr that he would deny any further applications from him.

Both Alexander and Paul Dorr believed Weber’s denials of their applications were the result of their advocacy against county spending, court testimony shows.

The judge agreed.

“Dorr was denied a permit precisely because Sheriff Weber believed that his free speech rights offended the majority of voters in Osceola County,” Bennett wrote in his ruling.

Dorr’s son, Alexander, also sued, but Bennett ruled Wednesday that Weber didn’t retaliate against Alexander Dorr for exercising his First Amendment rights to free speech.

Both Dorrs waived their claims to punitive damages.

Royal Douche 07.15.10

2010-07-15T00:03:00.000-05:00

The Winner: Chicago City Council

The Reason: Illegally circumventing McDonald v. Chicago by passing outrageous regulations, ignoring the fact that possessing a handgun is a RIGHT before and after this historic Supreme Court ruling.

These regulations include:

-- Limits the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibit residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.

-- Requires residents in homes with children to keep handguns in lock boxes or equipped with trigger locks.

-- Requires prospective gun owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits new gun ranges and limits the use of existing ranges to police officers. Those restrictions were similar to those in an ordinance passed in Washington, D.C., after the high court struck down its ban two years ago.-- Prohibits people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Residents convicted of a gun offense would have to register with the police department.

-- Calls for the police department to maintain a registry of every handgun owner in the city, with the names and addresses to be made available to police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders.

The Patriotism Gap

2010-07-13T01:41:00.003-05:00

Washington Times

A new survey shows that Americans, on average, are growing more patriotic. Among some predominantly liberal groups, however, patriotism is on the decline, and the gap between the left and the American public is widening. The two sides of the chasm reflect two distinct views of the United States.

The USA Today/Gallup poll conducted in mid-June shows that 32 percent of Americans describe themselves as "extremely patriotic," the highest number in the reported data, up from 19 percent in 1999. The 2010 total represents an 8 point increase since the January 2002 survey, which was the first after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The most patriotic groups of Americans are Republicans at 52 percent, conservatives at 48 percent and those over age 65 at 40 percent. The least patriotic are Democrats (20 percent), liberals (19 percent) and those aged 18 to 29 (22 percent).

The most patriotic groups have seen double-digit increases in "extremely" patriotic sentiment since 2005, while the least patriotic groups have flat-lined or declined. When it comes to those with less patriotic fervor, among Democrats the percentages in the "somewhat" or "not especially" patriotic categories rose from 33 percent in 2005 to 37 percent, while among Republicans the number declined from 15 percent to 9 percent, with the "not especially" group being less than 0.5 percent.

The study notes that it is "particularly intriguing" that 42 percent of Democrats are satisfied with the direction the country is heading while a mere 7 percent of the more patriotic Republicans agree. This 34 percent difference mirrors the 32 point patriotism gap between the two major parties. But feelings of patriotism should not be confused with a sense of complacency. Patriotism scores declined in the early 1990s after the end of the Cold War when the country seemed more secure and the future was less in doubt.

The recent resurgence of patriotic sentiment is better viewed as a measure of concern over the direction the country is taking. As with the Minutemen in 1775, today's patriots are responding to a call to action. Among some quarters on the left, the expression "patriot" is synonymous with the Tea Party movement, which they consider reactionary and racist. This may explain in part why liberals are less willing to describe themselves as patriotic.

The patriotism issue broadly parallels the battle lines of the culture war. Those brought up in an educational system in which the United States is portrayed negatively - as the country of slavery and segregation, of unjust wars, environmental pollution, evil capitalism and all manner of oppression - have no particular reason to be patriotic. To these people, Michelle Obama's position rang true when she said in February 2008 that, "for the first time in [her] adult lifetime" she was "really proud of [her] country." There was no reason to be proud of America before the Obama ascendance. Likewise, candidate Barack Obama's promise to "fundamentally transform" the United States was an exciting message to those who viewed America as a morally bankrupt, internationally despised country with a despicable history.

To those who hold a competing image of the United States - as a shining city on a hill, as the font of freedom, as a country of faith, hope and charity, as the product of a divine plan, as the defender of democracy and the last best hope of mankind - this vision needs no fundamental transformation. The rising tide of patriotism is a response to the assault on these American ideals, a defense of the dream of the first new nation founded in liberty. Patriotic Americans are not yet ready to give up the fight.

© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC

Robocop's Comment:

So what they are saying is that the Left is becoming more un-American?

The Declaration of Independence is Unconstitutional

2010-07-11T00:12:00.002-05:00

Human Events

While there is plenty of talk and rhetoric proclaiming all that is "Constitutional" or "Unconstitutional", when we examine and recognize that document which more than any other represents the soul of America, we find that document is: The Declaration of Independence.

With the simple preface, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", the novel idea of constructing government solely as best servant to the People and their God given privileges was born.

Because of the Declaration, and specifically this prefatory clause, the United States has developed a whole philosophy of thought called "American Exceptionalism".

This philosophy is what makes us special, different from any other nation on earth, and dare I say...

Better!

To the chagrin, of our current Commander in Chief, better is not better at all. In fact, better, a.k.a. American Exceptionalism, in the mind of our exalted leader, is arrogance.

To think, that we individuals might strive for excellence, driven by nothing other than our own will and the Providential opportunity with which we are presented is obscene to those like Obama who embrace a Statist ideology.

At his core, the Statist is a parasite who requires a subjugated public to advance himself. Unlike the rugged individualist who advances by grit and determination, the Statist assembles his power through propaganda that pits those rugged individualists in society who have achieved, against the sloth groups who have been convinced that achievement is an accidental occurrence falling upon those who have been "lucky".

Out of this thinking is bred a whole line of thought that has undermined our Founders vision for America and has convinced our populace that the Constitution is a "living, breathing" document which must be tempered by the populist mood of the age.

And of what character is this mood which is now arbiter and driver of public policy in America?

Schizophrenic, ignorant, sanctimonious, and dishonest are adjectives which come to mind.

It would seem, if we could apply contemporary American views and compare them to the theme of the foundational clause upon which our whole government has been built we ought to be able to find a congruence of understanding.

Let's try:

We hold these truths to be self-evident,

These truths are unarguable, anyone from any walk of life, regardless of background, social or economic class, educated or uneducated would agree on undeniable fundamental truths. What are fundamental truths? Do all our inhabitants agree about them?

that all men are created equal,

declaring us all subject to the same unarguable truths, the same rule, and the same law. No individual or group would be afforded any more or any less in the eyes of our law; ergo, it is not by accident that Lady Justice adorns a blindfold when ascertaining weights on a balance scale.

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

That separation of Church and State thing kind of falls apart right here. Unalienable meaning that they cannot be taken away, and that we are endowed by our Creator—God, specifying exactly who endowed us with our Rights. It is not a stretch to infer government's only role here is to protect what God has provided. Do all American's believe this? Is this the contemporary understanding of "Constitutional"?

that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

While the Founders were content to allow us to use our imagination in interpreting what unalienable rights we were endowed with, they wrote down a couple to make sure we got onto the right track. Our most important rights were listed, and it is not by accident that Life was put first.

The order of rights was listed in a prioritized manner exalting Life the supreme right, and should any Right conflict with another, the latter would yield to the former.

If a mother felt pregnancy was in some way threatening to her Liberty, her baby's right to Life was, in the scheme of things, of such priority that mom's Liberty could be impinged for the duration of the child's term. Using the word "was" instead of "is" might seem offensive, however, in today's culture, do we respect this distinction? Is abortion today viewed as greater right than is Life?

Has Roe vs. Wade established a women's right to end her pregnancy at any point before a child's birth, for any reason? Have we not heard Senators and Representatives state that the "right to choose" is a Constitutional right?

Politicians love to invoke all that is "Constitutional" or "Unconstitutional" in support of their views or positions, but if we cannot even agree on the most fundamental right from our most fundamental document, how on earth can we intellectually interpret whether or not Arizona can or cannot ask someone who has broken a law if he/she is in this country legally or not?

Today the United States recognizes Constitutionality of the Constitution, based not at all upon the words of the document, but upon the urges and inclinations of those who have seized power by appealing to the largest voting bloc.

There is no such thing as a Constitutional right which cannot be readily overturned, and in the contemporary interpretation, our Declaration of Independence is...

Unconstitutional.

Donate To Arizona Border Security and Immigration Legal Defense Fund

2010-07-09T12:48:00.004-05:00

In case you are not aware, the Obama regime is formally challenging Arizona's legal right to protect itself from the Illegal Alien problem. Now since Obama has OUR tax money to fight Arizona with, this great state will need our help. PLEASE donate to the cause at the Border Security and Immigration Legal Defense Fund.

Honoring America's Founding Principles

2010-07-09T01:28:00.001-05:00

Town Hall

Must America’s founding principles be changed to meet the challenges of our age? Are we defined by a place and a people or by the shared principles we embrace and preserve?

In his farewell address, George Washington warned, “Toward the preservation of your government…it is requisite…that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles.” Celebrating our Declaration of Independence involves honoring our founding principles.

Thomas Jefferson affirmed, "What is necessary to make us a happy and prosperous people? A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread. I own, I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy."

America stands for equal opportunity, not equal results. We prosper because citizens are free to create value instead of becoming burdens. But when President Obama works to “remake America” and tells Joe the Plumber of his desire to “spread the wealth around,” we wonder whether the property rights affirmed in our Bill of Rights are truly secure.

Benjamin Franklin warned, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety.” Espousing noble goals, liberals want to restrict peanuts on airplanes, determine what foods you can eat, and how much gas your car can use. Excessive regulations limit your liberty, choke our businesses, and explode the cost of government. Encourage safety, but value freedom even more.

John Adams asserted, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” George Washington added, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who would labor to subvert these great pillars…. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.”

The separation of church and state in our Constitution is not there to protect Americans from religion but to protect Americans from the government. The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The intent was established in the U.S. Congressional Records in the summer of 1789 where it was stated that no one denomination of the Christian faith was to have precedence. “In God we trust,” but we want no one denomination defining who God is. Instead of zoning God out of our public life, our Founding Fathers celebrated faith’s value. They wanted freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Benjamin Franklin criticized England’s welfare entitlements of his time, “There is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent…. You offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty.” Franklin preferred “responsible” caring: "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it…. Repeal that law (taxes), and you will soon see a change in their manners. Labor…will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them."

The American economy has served for over 200 years as the greatest anti-poverty program in human history because it encouraged work and discouraged idleness more than any other. America did this by guaranteeing its citizens the freedom to acquire property without being hindered by excessive regulations or redistribution policies. American “caring” shouldn’t be defined by the number of people “helped” by government but by how many no longer need it. Welfare’s purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.

No government check can match being touched and helped by local charities staffed by volunteers who care. When good works cease to be voluntary and “giving” through taxes becomes compulsory, charity gives way to confiscation and freedom to servitude.

Finally, George Washington reminded all in his first address to Congress, “To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.” America, in order to defend its freedom and way of life, must continue to invest adequate resource to remain strong, progressive, and technologically sophisticated to match the enemies of our age. When politicians suggested limiting our standing army to 5,000 by law, Washington asked for an amendment to limit the size of the enemy to 3,000 troops.

Property rights, earned reward, individual responsibility, religious freedom, limited government, a strong military, and “we the people” empowered to turn liberty into our own version of the American Dream are what our Founding Fathers left as a legacy. In November, you’ll have the opportunity to define true north for the future of this great country. Pick your values compass wisely. Our future depends on it.

Court's Gun Decision An Important Win for Americans Who Want to Defend Themselves

2010-07-06T00:06:00.004-05:00

By John Lott

With another closely decided 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled today that state governments are not able to ban most Americans from owning most types of handguns. The court ruled that firearms are "essential for self-defense." The court found that if the Second Amendment indeed protects an individual right to own a gun, the notion that the government can't ban all handguns is the minimum protection the Constitution can offer.

Yet, just as with abortion, this is the first of what is likely to be a long string of court decisions.

The decision is an important win for Americans who want the right to self-defense, but the decision also indicates how many questions still must be answered.

When the “Heller” decision was handed down in 2008 striking down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and gunlock regulations, Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley predicted disaster. He said that overturning the gun ban was "a very frightening decision" and predicted more deaths along with Wild West-style shootouts and that people "are going to take a gun and they are going to end their lives in a family dispute." Washington’s Mayor Adrian Fenty similarly warned: "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence."

Yet, Armageddon never arrived.

Washington’s murder rate has plummeted -- falling by 25 percent in 2009 alone. This compares with a national drop of only 7 percent last year. And D.C.'s drop has continued this year.

Comparing Washington’s crime rates from January 1 to June 17 of this year to the same period in 2008, shows a 34 percent drop in murder. This drop puts D.C.'s murder rate back to where it was before the 1977 handgun ban. Indeed, the murder rate is as low as was before 1967.

Other gun crimes have also fallen in Washington. While robberies without guns fell by 7 percent, robberies with gun fell by over 14 percent. Assaults with weapons other than guns fell by 7, but assaults using guns fell by over 20 percent.

The expected narrowness of the court's decision today had already encouraged Mayor Richard Daley and the city of Chicago to threaten last week to effectively undo the Supreme Court decision with new regulations.

Daley promised to quickly adopt all the regulations that Washington adopted in 2008 after its gun ban was struck down, as well as some additional ones. To get a handgun permit in Washington, applicants must pay fees over $550, make four trips to the police station, and take two different tests.

Taking the court's 2008 decision that all handguns can't be banned, Washington went so far as to still ban all semi-automatic handguns that can hold a clip. Chicago plans on doing the same but adding a requirement that gun owners buy insurance that covers any incidents that might arise from the weapon.

Obviously, if Chicago were to impose any tax on newspapers, the courts would strike it down as an infringement on free speech.

But the new Chicago and Washington gun "fees" will be allowed until the Supreme Court revisits that issue.

Where that line will be drawn on this closely divided court will be influenced by its newest member and the potential new member whose confirmation hearings get underway today.

Neither the latest justice, Sonia Sotomayor nor the next potential justice, Elena Kagan are sympathetic to an individual's right to self-defense.

In Washington, about 1,000 people now have permits to own handguns. With the gunlock law that made it illegal to have a loaded gun now struck down, over 70,000 people have permits for long guns that can now be used protect victims.

Yet, if over 70,000 armed citizens can produce 26 fewer murders and 375 violent crimes, imagine what can be accomplished if even more citizens are allowed to defend themselves.

We can only hope that Chicago will not adopt such high fees and stiff regulations that only allow the wealthiest will have the opportunity to defend themselves.

John R. Lott, Jr. is a FOXNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of "More Guns, Less Crime " the third edition of which was published by the University of Chicago Press in May.

Independence Day 2010

2010-07-04T01:01:00.001-05:00

Gun Grabbers Treat Criminals As Victims

2010-07-02T00:04:00.001-05:00

Washington Times

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Violence Policy Center (VPC) are peddling the notion that concealed-handgun permit holders are a danger to society. Last month, the center released a report claiming that in the past three years, 166 people were killed by holders of concealed-weapon permits. A closer look at the evidence suggests that many of the so-called victims of gun violence were criminals. Because more than 6 million Americans hold permits, it is important to set the record straight.

As one of the most populous states with a right-to-carry law, Florida has the most concealed-handgun permits. Between Oct. 1, 1987, and May 31, the state issued them to 1.8 million individuals. So far, just 167 permits have been revoked over any type of firearms-related violation. Most of those involved trivial, nonviolent infractions. To put that figure into perspective, the annual revocation rate is a minuscule 0.00017 percent, with just three revocations since January 2008. More people are killed every year by falling vending machines than by holders of a concealed-weapon permit.

You wouldn't know that from the rhetoric of the gun-control groups, which portray Florida as a dangerous place to live because of its laws. According to the VPC report, the Sunshine State accounted for 17 of the 96 "killer" permit holders nationwide, far more than any other state.

A recent Fox News investigation shot holes in the study. No charges were ever brought in seven of the Florida cases. One case clearly did not involve a permit holder - the person was, in fact, charged with illegally carrying a concealed handgun. Two cases that are still pending apparently involved self-defense, with one local newspaper account suggesting that the permit holder had a "strong case" to show that he had acted properly. Another case involved the accidental discharge of a firearm. The gun grabbers score all of these incidents as kills, but at least nine of them are examples of right-to-carry laws being used by permit holders to protect themselves and their families.

Three cases did result in "convictions," but they hardly represent clear-cut examples. One involved an accidental discharge and a conviction for involuntary manslaughter. In another case, a convicted felon sparked the incident by confronting the permit holder. According to the prosecutor, the permit holder "was in some way defending himself during an escalating altercation between the men caught on the security video" and that, "People can look at that tape and interpret it two or three different ways." His conviction rested on the question of whether he had done enough to avoid the confrontation.

The Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center show their desperation by twisting legitimate examples of self-defense into crimes. The simple fact is that most gun owners are law-abiding citizens. Suggesting that burglars, rapists and other hardened criminals are "victims" of permit holders is a stretch, even for these groups. The real statistics show that America is a safer place thanks to more of its citizens having a right to protect themselves and their families.

© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC.

ROYAL DOUCHE 06.30.10

2010-06-30T14:47:00.004-05:00

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

2010-06-30T11:27:00.000-05:00

Why Guns Are Good

2010-06-29T00:50:00.002-05:00

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

2010-06-28T23:40:00.001-05:00

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.

2010-06-27T00:10:00.001-05:00

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

2010-06-17T09:01:00.000-05:00

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"

2010-06-16T00:34:00.004-05:00

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

2010-06-14T00:13:00.002-05:00

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

2010-06-13T00:20:00.004-05:00

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

2010-06-09T09:21:00.000-05:00

A Place To Rob

2010-06-07T00:33:00.000-05:00

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

2010-06-06T00:55:00.001-05:00

Another Reason To Love Arizona

2010-06-06T00:13:00.000-05:00

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

2010-06-04T00:05:00.000-05:00

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

2010-06-03T01:40:00.003-05:00

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

2010-06-02T14:09:00.007-05:00

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

2010-06-01T20:54:00.002-05:00

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

2010-06-01T20:40:00.003-05:00

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

Memorial Day 05.31.10

2010-05-31T00:14:00.001-05:00

Open Carry Push In Texas

2010-05-30T00:01:00.004-05:00

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."

Six Flags Refuses Admission To Mom With Gun Tattoos

2010-05-29T10:32:00.003-05:00

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.

MODERN CIVIL RIGHTS: COCKFIGHTING AND SAME-SEX PROMS

2010-05-28T20:17:00.001-05:00

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

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

2010-05-26T03:38:00.004-05:00

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

Royal Douche Award 05.24.10

2010-05-24T21:22:00.002-05:00

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.

Calderon Go Back To Mexico!

2010-05-23T21:47:00.004-05:00

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:

Arizona Sing-A-Long: Read Immigration Law!

2010-05-22T11:55:00.002-05:00

READ ACTUAL LAW HERE

Washington's New Gun Rules Shift Constitutional Debate

2010-05-21T18:23:00.000-05:00

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.

Open Carry: not a return to the Wild West

2010-05-20T07:34:00.001-05:00

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!

2010-05-20T00:39:00.001-05:00

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.

Public Service Message 05.19.10

2010-05-19T15:10:00.004-05:00

LINK

BLOG

'Liberal' Is Worse Than Any Curse Word Now

2010-05-19T07:21:00.001-05:00

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

2010-05-19T00:40:00.000-05:00

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.”

Oklahoma Handgun Carry Law Supported Online

2010-05-18T18:30:00.003-05:00

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

2010-05-18T18:13:00.002-05:00

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!

Arizona Fights Back

2010-05-17T19:30:00.004-05:00

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...

Black Supremacists-1, Voters-0

2010-05-16T08:14:00.005-05:00

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.

Who Is Racist Again?

2010-05-15T21:43:00.004-05:00

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

2010-05-15T13:08:00.001-05:00

Muslim Terrorists Crossing US/Mexican Border

2010-05-15T10:47:00.000-05:00

The Stars And Stripes Offends Another "Educator"

2010-05-15T00:40:00.004-05:00

Robocop's Comment:

Another fine job of nurturing our young.

Royal Douche 05.13.10

2010-05-13T15:58:00.009-05:00

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'

2010-05-13T15:48:00.003-05:00

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

2010-05-13T00:10:00.000-05:00

Hope For The Young

2010-05-12T19:24:00.000-05:00

Stinko de Mayo

2010-05-10T20:09:00.002-05:00

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

2010-05-10T00:56:00.001-05:00

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.

Right Wing Extremist Linked To Time Square Bombing Attempt

2010-05-09T11:34:00.005-05:00

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

2010-05-09T00:08:00.002-05:00

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.

A Renewed Call For Open-Carry In Texas

2010-05-08T17:12:00.001-05:00

KRLD News

A vote in Oklahoma is expected to renew the push here in Texas for an open-carry law.
It's unclear whether the governor of Oklahoma will sign off, but yesterday the state house voted overwhelmingly to approve allowing gun owners with permits to openly carry their weapons in public. There's been a movement for years here in Texas for the state's conceal carry law to be changed to allow licensed owners to carry handguns in plain sight, but it's always faced opposition from those who believe allowing it would be intimidating to those who don't own guns. Others worry the wrong people could wrestle away a person's gun. But, thousands in Texas have signed a petition aimed at pushing lawmakers to allow law-abiding citizens to carry their guns in plain sight. The debate will no doubt heat up ahead of the next legislative session here in Texas in January.

The Shattered Template In Arizona

2010-05-08T00:07:00.000-05:00

American Spectator

By Jeffrey Lord on 5.4.10 @ 6:10AM

"You know, I tried to talk about good roads and good schools and all these things that have been part of my career, and nobody listened. And then I began talking about n….s, and they stomped the floor." -- Democrat George Wallace on his first, failed, race for Governor of Alabama

That sound you hear is a rare thing.

A liberal template is being shattered in Arizona. The template of race.

It's an important liberal template too. Central to the success of one of the biggest of liberal myths. The myth? That the electoral successes of the Left throughout American history have had nothing to do with race, much less racism. That in fact all those angelic lefties out there just want truth, justice and the American way for white and black and brown and yellow and red and any other combination of hues on the color scale. Kumbaya. Divide by race? How insulting!

The truth, however -- and that truth is reappearing vividly once again in Arizona -- is that the American Left could not have made it to the 21st century without tying itself tightly to abject racism. It has secured political success in the past by playing every possible race card from supporting, in order, slavery, segregation, lynching, the Ku Klux Klan and racial quotas, while fiercely opposing the legal immigration of Asians. The latter were labeled by Democrats as "a servile race" whose presence was objectionable because "they had not sprung from the great parent stock." Now, in the piece de resistance, the Left is using the race card with illegal immigration. And it is no accident that what began with racial appeals to whites (in opposing rights for blacks and legal immigration for Asians) moved on to racial appeals to blacks and now to brown-skinned Americans. The more the race changes, the more the approach stays the same.

The liberal media, but of course, is complicit. And, it is most import to understand, it has always been so. If liberals were the (literal) slave masters and segregationist bullies of America's past (and they were), the left-leaning press was the plantation PR agent. They approached progressives and their use of race in such a starkly deceptive fashion as to be a pluperfect example of what this magazine's editor in chief R. Emmett Tyrrell calls "the Kultursmog." Tyrrell defines the term (in his new book After the Hangover) as a liberal "pollutant" which "contaminates such vast areas of American culture with Liberal prejudices and bugaboos." There is no need to rehash here the details of all those Democratic Party platforms (26) that directly supported either slavery itself or segregation when they weren't whacking away at Asians. Suffice to say the American Left has danced, tangoed, waltzed, and fox- trotted when not sleeping with every incarnation of racism in America from the beginning to this moment. Somehow, this just never made it into the news of the day as reported by all those Lefty journos, the cultural smokestacks never getting around to pumping this particularly cleansing truth into the political atmosphere.

Case in point (there are an endless number) is the New York Times' handling of the death in 1924 of former President Woodrow Wilson, a hero then and now of the American Left.

The day after Wilson's death, befitting the importance of a powerful president, the Times published a three page review of Wilson's career. Three pages in fine print, beneath the headline Career of Woodrow Wilson as College Executive, Governor and President. There was not a single, solitary word that Wilson was not only a thorough-going racist, had avidly courted like-minded segregationists to get elected (carrying the 13 states of the "Solid South") but had used his presidential power to both segregate the federal government and appoint rabid progressive-racists to powerful posts, such as Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels. Daniels, on cue, promptly segregated the US Navy.

And of these decidedly important events which vividly illustrated the historic tie between the American Left and racists the Times reported: Nothing. Zero. Not one solitary word in a three-page, fine print career review.

The Times did have space for other headlines though during the so-called "Progressive Era." They are unintentionally revealing of the American Left's view of race.

"Woman Rescued from Negro"
"Woman Stabbed by a Negro"
"Negro Attacks a Teacher"
"Negro Kills a Sheriff"
"Negro Saves $30,000"

Got that? Not "Woman Rescued" or "Woman Stabbed" or "Man Attacks a Teacher" or "Man Saves $30,000." Noooooooooo. It's a Negro. Yet when a white man was caught sending bombs to three people, the headline ran: "Three Bombs His, Janitor Admits." Race never made the story, the man's ethnic surname identifying him as an Irish American. A white man.

This was -- and is -- the way the liberal media deals with race. It is a necessary base line for the success of the American Left. The Times was relentless in reporting blacks as perpetrators of all manner of bad deeds -- because this supported the need for progressive-racists to appeal successfully for white votes. It worked. And when Woodrow Wilson died, the historical record of what he had actually done -- the true nature of the relationship between the left and racism during the Wilson presidency -- vanished. Right in front of the eyes of 1924 Times readers. Then again, how can something vanish if it's never reported in the first place?

As time moved on, a strange similarity began to emerge as the Left finally engaged with American blacks.

Progressives presented big government to blacks in precisely the same way they presented it to white Southerners: tied tightly together to the idea of racial identity. Thus emerged a whole generation of progressive black politicians who were the mirror image of their white supremacist counterparts: each exploiting the combustible mix of racism and big government.

Nowhere has this approach been more prominently displayed then on Capitol Hill, where the Congressional Black Caucus has emerged blessed by the liberal media, with the progressive-racism formula burnished to a finely polished glow.

When liberal white Congressman Steve Cohen, elected from a Tennessee district that is 60% black, requested membership to what he assumed was the politically simpatico Black Caucus, he was refused. In stark terms worthy of a Klan member (underneath those hoods were big government leftists) denying membership to an eager -- but black -- leftist, Black Caucus member Congressman William Lacy Clay, Jr. bluntly delivered the response: "Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. He's white and the Caucus is black. It's time to move on. We have racial policies to pursue and we are pursuing them, as Mr. Cohen has learned. It's an unwritten rule. It's understood."

Yet this starkly racial rejoinder never made the liberal press so much as blink. Why might that be?

The original verbal attack by Southern progressives on supporters of equal rights in the Solid (which is to say Democratic) South was that so-and-so was a "n…lover." The term radiated hatred, as it was designed to do. The message was that race X -- African Americans in this case -- were inferior. And that if you deigned in word or deed to suggest otherwise, you were to be stigmatized by this description.

Today, "racist" is the new "n-word" for the Left.

It is used precisely by white, black, and Latino progressives in exactly the same way the "n-word" phrase was used in the Solid South by white progressives; to stigmatize, to render illegitimate for social -- and most importantly -- political reasons. It is not possible to have a "Solid South" or a "black vote" or "Hispanic vote" turning out for progressive causes en masse unless the race button is pushed.

And so, it's pushed.

The newest crop of those pushing the old progressive-race theme -- this time with Latinos -- include the well-schooled members of the Congressional Black Caucus. This being the group that proudly excludes non-blacks -- that would be Latinos as well as whites -- per Congressman Clay. So a group of Democrats that deliberately discriminates against Latinos and whites in the fine style of their party's tradition is out there using the r-word with all the skill of George Wallace if not the subtlety of Woodrow Wilson or the New York Times.

The "racist" label is quickly affixed to any and all who believe in a color-blind America, just as the "n-word" once was employed in the quest for progressive electoral victories based on appeals to white supremacy. This in turn fills American leftist politics with those who use only a marginally updated version of that George Wallace quote to succeed, simply substituting the "r word" for the "n word." As in:

"You know, I tried to talk about good roads and good schools and all these things that have been part of my career, and nobody listened. And then I began talking about racists, and they stomped the floor."

They are stomping the floor in Arizona, as seen here.

Not slow to cheer on the floor stompers was President Obama.

"It will be up to each of you to make sure that the young people, African Americans, Latinos, and women, who powered our victory in 2008 stand together once again."

And right there, the liberal template on race -- in use for the better part of two centuries -- has now begun to shatter.

Why?

The conservative media exists -- and from the Wall Street Journal to the Washington Times to the New York Post to Rush Limbaugh and the rest of talk radio -- the entire progressive-race axis is not only being exposed it is being mocked.

• Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal even brought in some establishment Republicans:

The establishments of the American political parties, and the media, are full of people who think concern about illegal immigration is a mark of racism. If you were Freud you might say, "How odd that's where their minds so quickly go, how strange they're so eager to point an accusing finger. Could they be projecting onto others their own, heavily defended-against inner emotions?"

Good question Peggy. Very good question with a lot of sad history that already gives the rest of us an answer.

• Jeffrey Kuhner in the Washington Times: "Mr. Obama is fracturing America. He is calling on the primacy of race and gender in order to perpetuate his national socialist revolution"

• Rush Limbaugh threw the "r-word" right back at Obama: "This is the regime at its racist best."

• Mark Steyn mocked the "r-word" as only a legal immigrant can:

As I write, I have my papers on me -- and not just because I'm in Arizona. I'm an immigrant, and it is a condition of my admission to this great land that I carry documentary proof of my residency status with me at all times and be prepared to produce it to law enforcement officials, whether on a business trip to Tucson or taking a 20-minute stroll in the woods back at my pad in New Hampshire.

Who would impose such an outrageous Nazi fascist discriminatory law?

Er, well, that would be Franklin Roosevelt.

• Bob Gorrell: The cartoonist featured in The New York Post perhaps scored as only a cartoonist can, with this gem showing a baffled Arizonan saying he only wants the law obeyed and those with proper documentation allowed in his state -- only to be fingered by an angry Democrat as a racist.

The problem for progressives is that in today's world millions of Americans of all colors -- those who really do believe in a color-blind society and live it everyday with family, friends, neighbors, employers, employees, colleagues and so on -- simply refuse to be played. A Rasmussen poll shows that 70% of Arizonans -- not just white Arizonans but all Arizonans be they white, black, brown, red or yellow -- want their border secured. Like people everywhere else in America they have locks on their door for a reason, and cannot fathom the idea that if their house were suddenly invaded by hundreds of uninvited and increasingly violent people of any race they would be deemed "racists" for calling the police.

But the push is on to make Hispanics the new white supremacists, to make the people in that Phoenix rally into the kind of people in this rally. To tie people together politically by the fact of skin color as opposed to the idea of America, of liberty, of freedom and economic opportunity for all.

Make no mistake: the reason progressives use race so desperately to win elections -- and have done so forever -- is that they are desperate. For control. Control over you, your health care, your taxes, your checkbook, your kid's schools, your view of religion -- everything and anything right down to the latest ploy to remove salt from your diet and plastic toys from McDonald's. And they can't get it unless they place the race card.

But time has moved on. It isn't 1924 anymore.

The liberal template on race is shattering. Seventy-percent of Arizonans know the game -- and so does the conservative media.

And we refuse to play.

Give Me Liberty Or...

2010-05-07T01:21:00.000-05:00

Chuck Norris

I believe the political stars are aligning right now for the opening of a new front in the battle against our gun rights, via the election and work of an anti-gun president, the disarmament passions of the Washington elite and the United Nations, the appointments of gun prohibitionists in the White House and Supreme Court, and the funding of an anti-Second Amendment movement by billionaire progressives, such as George Soros.

Last week, I discussed President Barack Obama's anti-Second Amendment record and his administration's goal to use dormant treaties and global agencies to loosen the boundaries and binds of the Second Amendment. I wish to expand upon the United Nations' participation a little further in this second part of my trilogy.

In October, the Obama administration reversed the position taken by the Bush White House by stating its support for a process that could, in 2012, result in an international treaty to regulate conventional arms sales. Of course, "regulate" is a euphemism here for "the beginning of banning."

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called conference on the arms trade treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."

Without a single mention of the Second Amendment or America's sovereignty in her entire statement, Clinton said, "The United States is committed to actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally binding standards for the international transfer of conventional weapons."

Amnesty International and Oxfam International jointly declared the action "a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations." But do Americans really want or need the U.N. to tell us what to do with our guns with an international treaty? And when we are negotiating with other countries, do we really expect non-U.S. delegates to be conciliatory to America's unique Second Amendment rights? James Madison noted in Federalist No. 46 that the Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

In 2006, the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution titled "Towards an arms trade treaty." In 2008, the General Assembly passed another resolution that accelerated efforts toward an arms trade treaty. In both cases, the U.S. was the only country opposed. Now it appears that Obama and Clinton have ordered our team of U.N. negotiators to drop their opposition and move forward to develop "consensus."

With the Obama administration receptive and on board, the General Assembly is moving forward with a U.N. conference to produce an arms trade treaty in 2012 -- perhaps sooner. In fact, the U.N. is hosting a major conference on this subject in June.

John Bolton, who was the Bush administration's ambassador to the U.N., explained in November: "The (Obama) administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there's no doubt -- as was the case back over a decade ago -- that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control. After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it ... requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms. The administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context. ... (It) will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what (it) couldn't otherwise."

Of course, any international treaty needs the approval of two-thirds of the Senate to be ratified, and critics on both sides say there's no way that will happen. Cato Institute scholar Ted Galen Carpenter spoke for many others when he said, "There is no chance of getting a two-thirds vote in the Senate to pass this treaty; it has too many implications for gun rights in the United States." I respectfully beg to differ. Look at how Obamacare was shoved through the Senate like a ramrod, even after the landmark election of "no" voter Scott Brown of Massachusetts. Believe me; if there's a will, they'll find a way.

Why the Constitution is so complicated to some I never will understand. Our Founders ratified a Second Amendment as a right and defense for all Americans. There's nothing easy about defending your life. And taking a life is a mega-tragedy. But when your life is in danger, the Second Amendment provides for your and your loved ones' security.

Case in point: Last month, Michael Lish and his wife arrived home in Tulsa, Okla., at 10 p.m. to find the back door ajar and a window open. Unbeknownst to the couple, the intruder in their house had been released from jail recently and had a history of drug offenses and driving under the influence. Michael had just entered his house when he heard a noise coming from the master bedroom. Once Michael neared the bedroom, the intruder, 19-year-old Billy Jean Tiffey III, approached Michael with a sword that he was in the process of stealing from the house. When Tiffey did not comply with his order to stop approaching him, Michael, who had a concealed-weapons permit, pulled out his gun and shot Tiffey in the abdomen. However, the intruder dropped to his knees and reached behind his back, appearing to the homeowner as if he was reaching for another weapon. (In addition to the sword, he was packing a .38-caliber pistol, a 9 mm pistol, a knife and a stun gun.) Michael had no choice -- and he shot Tiffey two more times in the chest, killing him.

It was certainly an understatement of Thomas Jefferson's when he wrote to George Washington these words in 1796: "One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."

Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

A Legal Immigrant's Take on Arizona's Immigration Law

2010-05-06T07:58:00.002-05:00

Fox News

As a legal immigrant, I neither empathize with nor support those who break the law in order to gain admission into the United States of America.

I am a legal immigrant. My family and I emigrated from Russia to New York in 1993. We applied for permission to do so in 1990. Throughout those three years we went through numerous background checks and interviews and we waited patiently to be granted the right to move to America.

My status as a legal immigrant shapes my perspective on the illegal immigration issue in general, and Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070 recently adopted by the state of Arizona in particular. When confronted by critics of this legislation, who have urged me to empathize with illegal immigrants, I draw the following comparison: when a person goes into a bank with a check and receives cash for it, that person follows the legal and proper procedure for obtaining money; however, when a person robs a bank with a gun, that person, too, has received cash, but by way of committing an illegal act. Both individuals leave the bank with money, however, one is a law abiding citizen while the other is a criminal.

As a legal immigrant, I neither empathize with nor support those who break the law in order to gain admission into the United States of America. The background checks and interviews that we experienced as a part of the legal immigration process proved to the American authorities that my family did not harbor a criminal past, communicable diseases or extreme views. Those who skirt the procedures are not only breaking the law by entering the country illegally, they are robbing the United States of the chance to vet them. These illegal aliens disrespect the American rule of law. They disrespect legal immigrants like me who stood in line to come here. And they disrespect all American citizens at large who are kept safe by the immigration rules and processes.

It is counterproductive to denounce the Arizona bill as the left has at every turn. It would be much more constructive to offer Arizona and its citizens an alternative -- something the federal government has failed to do. Arizona's illegal immigration problem manifests itself in overcrowded schools and hospitals, rampant violence and has left Phoenix with the second highest kidnapping rate in the world, right behind Mexico City.

Arizona has exercised its constitutional right to deal with the problem that has bankrupted the state. Polls show that 70 percent of Arizonans and a majority of Americans support the measure.
President Obama has led the charge against Arizona’s new immigration law. He is capitalizing on this divisive issue for political gain by wrongfully painting supporters of the bill as racist.

As president of the United States, it is Mr. Obama's job to protect its citizens. He should not frivolously interfere with states as they deal with the problems that they face, especially those, such as illegal immigration, that federal institutions do not deal with adequately. Speaking both as a legal immigrant and an American citizen, I urge President Obama to put away his political interests. If his opposition to the legislation is truly genuine, then he needs to step up offer real alternatives to SB 1070.

Boris Epshteyn is a political strategist, attorney and business consultant in New York City. He served as a communications aide on the McCain – Palin 2008 presidential campaign. He is a frequent guest on Foxnews.com's "The Strategy Room" and appears occasionally on other Fox News Channel programs. Contact him at boris@strategy-llc.com.

Robocop's Comment:

Funny thing, my parents agree to this. Remember Libtards, this is not a race issue. It is an issue of law.

More Wisdom From Bloomberg The Royal Douche

2010-05-05T11:03:00.004-05:00

We have already seen in my LAST POST how big of an idiot Mayor Bloomberg of NYC was trying to tie the Times Square car bombing attempt with right winged extremists. Of course, time revealed that he was dead wrong. The terrorist turned out to be an Islamofacist. America invited him, and the rest of his Libtard friends to eat those words of hate towards fellow Americans. But now, instead of admitting his libtardism, Bloomberg calls out for more GUN CONTROL. By the way Mr. Bloomberg, it is already illegal to sell firearms to criminals, and terrorists just happen to fit that bill. Also by the way, your persistent stupidity has earned you the Royal Douche Award. Congrats!

Bloomberg-Words He Should EAT

2010-05-04T13:15:00.008-05:00

See video HERE.

Robocop's Comment:

So what we have here is a "concerned" Islamofacist who has a "right wing agenda"?!? I don't think so. Mr. Bloomberg, you so suck. Jumping on the Clinton bandwagon linking conservative dissent to future violence will not work. There are too many decent Americans who are genuinely and peacefully concerned with the leftward dive this federal government is taking. There is no Timothy McVeigh in this incident to celebrate over. There is no additional excuse to limit our rights to express those concerns.

Follow Up

Times Square Car Bomb Suspect Faces Terrorism Charges After Admitting to Plot

snip

Holder said Shahzad, who has provided "valuable information" to investigators, attempted to carry out a "lethal terrorist attack" aimed at "murdering Americans in one of the busiest places in our country."

snip

CBS News reported earlier Monday that Pakistani authorities apprehended suspects connected to the terrorist plot during raids Monday night and Tuesday morning in different locations. Some of them may be related to Shahzad, according to the network.

snip

More than a dozen people with American citizenship or residency, like Shahzad, have been accused in the past two years of supporting or carrying out terrorism attempts on U.S. soil, cases that illustrate the threat of violent extremism from within the U.S.

Among them are Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, a U.S.-born Army psychiatrist of Palestinian descent, charged with fatally shooting 13 people last year at Fort Hood, Texas; Najibullah Zazi, a Denver-area airport shuttle driver who pleaded guilty in February in a plot to bomb New York subways; and a Pennsylvania woman who authorities say became radicalized online as "Jihad Jane" and plotted to kill a Swedish artist whose work offended Muslims.

SO MUCH FOR RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS Mr. Bloomberg!

Here is an additional statement from the Washington Times that sums it all:

snip

There was no joy in liberal land when the prime suspect in the Times Square bomb plot turned out to be a Pakistani-American. The right-wing terrorist boogeyman vanished. Leftist racial and ethnic profiling failed again.

New Light Shed On Kent State Killings

2010-05-04T13:06:00.003-05:00

Washington Times

Previously undisclosed FBI documents suggest that the Kent State antiwar protests were more meticulously planned than originally thought and that one or more gunshots may have been fired at embattled Ohio National Guardsmen before their killings of four students and woundings of at least nine others on that searing day in May 1970.

As the nation marks the 40th anniversary of the Kent State antiwar protests Tuesday, a review of hundreds of previously unpublished investigative reports sheds a new — and very different — light on the tragic episode.

The upheaval that enveloped the northeastern Ohio campus actually began three days earlier, in downtown Kent. Stirred to action by President Nixon's expansion of U.S. military operations in Cambodia, a roving mob of earnest antiwar activists, hard-core radicals, curious students and others smashed 50 bank and store windows, looted a jewelry store and hurled bricks and bottles at police.

Four officers suffered injuries, and the mayor declared a civil emergency. Only tear gas dispersed the mob.

An exhaustive review later concluded that this unrest on the streets — the worst in Kent's history — was "not an organized riot or a planned protest."

But the FBI's investigation swiftly uncovered reliable evidence that suggested otherwise. Among the strongest was a pre-dawn conversation — never before reported — between two unnamed men overheard inside a campus lounge later that night. Their discussion was witnessed by the girlfriend of a Kent State student and conveyed up the FBI chain of command 15 days later.

"We did it," one man exulted, according to the inquiry. "We got the riot started."

The second man expressed disappointment at being excluded from the riot's planning. "Wait until tomorrow night," the leader replied excitedly. "We just got the word. We're going to burn the ROTC building."

This was 20 hours before the ROTC headquarters on the Kent State campus, an old wooden frame building, was, in fact, burned to the ground.

"What about the flare?" the second man asked before the leader spotted the coed listening to them and abruptly ended the conversation. Dozens of witnesses later told the FBI they saw a flare used to ignite the blaze.

Now largely forgotten, the torching of the ROTC building was the true precursor to the killings at Kent State because it triggered the deployment of the National Guard to the fevered campus.

That deployment climaxed in bloodshed on the afternoon of May 4, 1970, with the guardsmen, clad in gas masks and confronted by angry, rock-throwing students, firing their M-1 rifles 67 times in 13 seconds, killing Allison Krause, Jeffrey Miller, Sandra Scheuer and William Knox Schroeder.

A report submitted to Attorney General John Mitchell in June 1970 stated "there was no sniper" who could have fired at the guardsmen before the killings.

Numerous witnesses corroborated this.

A female freshman provided the FBI with a sworn statement that "there was no shot before [the guardsmen's] volley, and there were no warning shots fired." The Justice Department's internal review cited statements by six guardsmen who "pointedly" told the FBI that their lives were not in danger and that "it was not a shooting situation."

Yet the declassified FBI files show the FBI already had developed credible evidence suggesting that there was indeed a sniper and that one or more shots may have been fired at the guardsmen first.

Rumors of a sniper had circulated for at least a day before the fatal confrontation, the documents show. And a memorandum sent to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover on May 19, 1970, referred to bullet holes found in a tree and a statue — evidence, the report stated, that "indicated that at least two shots had been fired at the National Guard."

Another interviewee told agents that a guardsman had spoken of "a confirmed report of a sniper."

It also turned out that the FBI had its own informant and agent-provocateur roaming the crowd, a part-time Kent State student named Terry Norman, who had a camera. Mr. Norman also was armed with a snub-nosed revolver that FBI ballistics tests, first declassified in 1977, concluded had indeed been discharged on that day.

Then there was the testimony of an ROTC cadet whose identity remains unknown, one of the pervasive redactions concealing the names of all the FBI agents who conducted the interviews and of all those whom they interrogated. Although presumably angry over the demonstrators' destruction of the campus ROTC building, the cadet's calm, precise firsthand account nonetheless carries a credibility not easily dismissed.

Before the fatal volley, the ROTC cadet told the FBI, he "heard one round, a pause, two rounds, and then the M-1s opened up."

The report continued that the cadet "stated that the first three rounds were definitely not M-1s. He said they could possibly have been a .45 caliber. … [He] further stated that he heard confirmed reports of sniper fire coming in over both the National Guard radio and the state police radio."

The cadet also told the FBI he observed demonstrators carrying baseball bats, golf clubs and improvised weapons, including pieces of steel wire cut into footlong sections, along with radios and other electronic devices "used to monitor the police and Guard wavelengths."

Separately, a female student told the FBI she "recalled hearing what she thought was [the sound of] firecrackers and then a few seconds later [she] heard noise that to her sounded like a machine gun going off, but then later thought it may have been a volley of shots from the Guard."

Absent the declassification of the FBI's entire investigative file, many questions remain unanswered — including why the documents quoted here were overlooked, or discounted, in the Justice Department's official findings.

At a minimum, the FBI documents strongly challenge the received narrative that the rioting in downtown Kent was spontaneous and unplanned, that the burning of the ROTC headquarters was similarly impulsive and that the guardsmen's fatal shootings were explicable only as unprovoked acts.

The FBI files provide, in short, a hidden history of the killings at Kent State. They show that the "four dead in Ohio" more properly belong, in the grand sweep of history, to four days in May, an angry, chaotic and violent interlude when a controversial foreign war came home to American soil.

Robocop's Comment:

Things that make you go hmm...

How Mexico treats illegal aliens

2010-05-04T00:20:00.000-05:00

By Michelle Malkin

My syndicated column today responds to Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s demagoguery on Arizona’s immigration enforcement law. Calderon has a long history of bashing the U.S. — and then getting rewarded for it with billions of dollars in foreign aid (see here, here, and here).

I reported on Calderon’s aggressive meddling on behalf of illegal aliens through his government consulate offices in America here. Heather Mac Donald published a thorough investigation of the Mexican government meddle-crats here. Allan Wall has reported on it for years. Mike Sweeney, an Arizona Republic letter-writer underscores my column theme today:

“Having traveled into Mexico last year to various cities on the Baja Peninsula, a distance of more than 1,000 miles round-trip, we were stopped more than 20 times at various checkpoints. At most of those stops, we were told to exit the vehicle and we were subjected to rigorous inspections. Where does Mexican President Felipe Calderón get off with his hypocritical outrage at our Senate Bill 1070?”

Where indeed?

***

How Mexico treats illegal aliens
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010

Mexican President Felipe Calderon has accused Arizona of opening the door “to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement.” But Arizona has nothing on Mexico when it comes to cracking down on illegal aliens. While open-borders activists decry new enforcement measures signed into law in “Nazi-zona” last week, they remain deaf, dumb or willfully blind to the unapologetically restrictionist policies of our neighbors to the south.

The Arizona law bans sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce immigration laws, stiffens penalties against illegal alien day laborers and their employers, makes it a misdemeanor for immigrants to fail to complete and carry an alien registration document, and allows the police to arrest immigrants unable to show documents proving they are in the U.S. legally. If those rules constitute the racist, fascist, xenophobic, inhumane regime that the National Council of La Raza, Al Sharpton, Catholic bishops and their grievance-mongering followers claim, then what about these regulations and restrictions imposed on foreigners?

– The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset “the equilibrium of the national demographics.” How’s that for racial and ethnic profiling?

– If outsiders do not enhance the country’s “economic or national interests” or are “not found to be physically or mentally healthy,” they are not welcome. Neither are those who show “contempt against national sovereignty or security.” They must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories. Those seeking to obtain Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own health care.

– Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years’ imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years’ imprisonment. Foreigners may be kicked out of the country without due process and the endless bites at the litigation apple that illegal aliens are afforded in our country (see, for example, President Obama’s illegal alien aunt — a fugitive from deportation for eight years who is awaiting a second decision on her previously rejected asylum claim).

– Law enforcement officials at all levels — by national mandate — must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. Native-born Mexicans are empowered to make citizens’ arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.

– Ready to show your papers? Mexico’s National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, who must carry a citizens’ identity card. Visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest as illegal aliens.

All of these provisions are enshrined in Mexico’s Ley General de Población (General Law of the Population) and were spotlighted in a 2006 research paper published by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy. There’s been no public clamor for “comprehensive immigration reform” in Mexico, however, because pro-illegal alien speech by outsiders is prohibited.

Consider: Open-borders protesters marched freely at the Capitol building in Arizona, comparing GOP Gov. Jan Brewer to Hitler, waving Mexican flags, advocating that demonstrators “Smash the State,” and holding signs that proclaimed “No human is illegal” and “We have rights.”

But under the Mexican constitution, such political speech by foreigners is banned. Noncitizens cannot “in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.” In fact, a plethora of Mexican statutes enacted by its congress limit the participation of foreign nationals and companies in everything from investment, education, mining and civil aviation to electric energy and firearms. Foreigners have severely limited private property and employment rights (if any).

As for abuse, the Mexican government is notorious for its abuse of Central American illegal aliens who attempt to violate Mexico’s southern border. The Red Cross has protested rampant Mexican police corruption, intimidation and bribery schemes targeting illegal aliens there for years. Mexico didn’t respond by granting mass amnesty to illegal aliens, as it is demanding that we do. It clamped down on its borders even further. In late 2008, the Mexican government launched an aggressive deportation plan to curtain illegal Cuban immigration and human trafficking through Cancun.

Meanwhile, Mexican consular offices in the United States have coordinated with left-wing social justice groups and the Catholic Church leadership to demand a moratorium on all deportations and a freeze on all employment raids across America.

Mexico is doing the job Arizona is now doing — a job the U.S. government has failed miserably to do: putting its people first. Here’s the proper rejoinder to all the hysterical demagogues in Mexico (and their sympathizers here on American soil) now calling for boycotts and invoking Jim Crow laws, apartheid and the Holocaust because Arizona has taken its sovereignty into its own hands:

Hipócritas.