Friday, January 6, 2012

(Teabrainer shot) PLEASE!!! This is too good. I gotta go here, or my internal organs will burst!

=)) rolling on the floor=)) rolling on the floor=)) rolling on the floor=)) rolling on the floor=)) rolling on the floor=)) rolling on the floor=)) rolling on the floor=)) rolling on the floor=)) rolling on the floor=)) rolling on the floor=)) rolling on the floor=)) rolling on the floor=)) rolling on the floor=)) rolling on the floor=)) rolling on the floor
-
-
"Already, the religious right, represented by Rick Santorum, and Tea Party activists, represented by Ron Paul, have pushed Romney in unwanted directions."
-
Repeat: "...Tea Party activists, represented by Ron Paul..."
-
Maybe I should say that again: "...Tea Party activists, represented by Ron Paul..."
-
To clarify the identity of the individual: "...Tea Party activists, represented by RON PAUL..."
-
Now, to break that down into an algebraic* statement: "Tea Party activists"="[people] represented by Ron Paul".
-
To simplify the equation**:
-
"Tea Party"="Ron Paul"!
-
* NOTE TO TEA PARTY PEOPLE: "Algebraic" means, "of or pertaining to algebra." "Algebra" is that funky math stuff with all the letters that folks who pass the fifth grade study (no, not English class). It is NOT a type of women's upper-support undergarment made from or containing something that grows in your fish tank.
-
** NOTE TO TEA PARTY PEOPLE: An "equation" is a statement saying two things are the same, or "equal." That is why it includes what is called an "equals sign". It looks like this: " = ". So as you can see, that key has uses other than making funky emoticons.
-
Speaking of which...
-
=)) rolling on the floor=)) rolling on the floor=)) rolling on the floor=)) rolling on the floor=)) rolling on the floor=)) rolling on the floor=)) rolling on the floor=)) rolling on the floor=)) rolling on the floor=)) rolling on the  floor=)) rolling on the floor=)) rolling on the floor=)) rolling on the floor=)) rolling on the floor=)) rolling on the floor
-
Now, c'mon. There is NO WAY I could pass this one up! It's like telling a comedian in the '90s not to make Monica Lewinsky jokes. And imagine if someone had accused her of being used by the political opposition and called her a "sucker." COME ON!!!!
-
Thank you. Carry on.

Thursday, January 5, 2012

Two young people's books reviewed by yours truly (so you know it's good)

Thunder: The Mighty Stallion of the Hills [Mass Market Paperback] http://www.amazon.com/Thunder-Mighty-Stallion-Mike-Jahn/dp/B000HANLIG/ref=cm_cr-mr-title

-

AND

-

Thunder: The Mighty Stallion to the Rescue [Mass Market Paperback] http://www.amazon.com/Thunder-Mighty-Stallion-Mike-Jahn/dp/B000OK8Z2G/ref=cm_cr-mr-title

-
SLIGHTLY EDITED VERSION OF THE REVIEW I WROTE FOR BOTH BOOKS:
-
5.0 out of 5 stars A pleasant memory from the past, January 5, 2012
By Lee T. Walker (Kosovo)
(REAL NAME)
-
[THESE BOOKS] are basically young people's books novelizing episodes from the 1977-78 NBC Saturday morning live-action series, "Thunder," later called, "Superhorse, Starring Thunder" or something like that. The story is of a ranching family in the present-day (1970s) American West. The father is a rancher, the mother is a veterinarian, and the daughter is a typical rural 'tween. She has a male sidekick with a mule, and the three of them get into typical adventurous problems. Thunder is a wild stallion with a heart of gold, who comes to the rescue (duh!) against threats, be they two-legged, four-legged, or simply natural accidents.
-
I read both books as a youngster who remembered the series a few years before. The stories largely track episodes of the series, as I recall. They include typical messages of the time--the girl can do boyish things as well as the boys (YouTube has the tail end of an episode -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWCdkGzkiA4 -- about the girl being deprecated on her outdoor survival skills), we should try to preserve wildlife (one two-part episode centered around dealing with a mountain lion preying on cattle), people should play fair (one story involves cheating at a rodeo), and of course stopping the bad guys without (much) gunplay. But for the more conservative potential reader, they are not offensive or exceedingly PC. Indeed, the ranch has guns, and from what I recall from the book, some of those guns might not be legal in California anymore (I don't recall for sure whether it was set in California or Arizona).
-
If you remember and long for the series, these are excellent books to rehash and remember those good times. If you are a young person interested in such books and stories, I absolutely recommend these to you. If you want some very simple and sweet stories for someone, say the elderly, who wants something far cleaner than the common fare today, then these are something to consider, especially at these prices!
-
Personally, I find it sad that shows like these aren't on Saturday morning television anymore. In the 1990s and early 2000s, NBC did their "T-NBC," with shows like "Saved By the Bell" and "Hang Time," but they were not the same. Too much comedy. Shows like "Thunder," "The Red Hand Gang," and "Search and Rescue" were entertaining and character-building. And these books bring a little bit of that magic to our day and age.
-
Something to SERIOUSLY consider.

Now here is a case of overt intimidation worthy of concern

 
LAFFERTY DETAINED BY STATE DEPARTMENT
Washington D.C. (December 15th, 2011) -- Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) president Andrea Lafferty was targeted and detained by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's security personnel this Wednesday during the closing event capping the three day closed-door conference advancing the implementation of U.N. Resolution 16/18.
"For weeks we have been asking whether the true aims of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and U.N. Resolution 16/18 would be used to apply "old fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming" to chill and coerce those critical of the Islamist agenda," said Lafferty.
"Hillary Clinton was as good as her word," said Lafferty.
Lafferty was circled by several members of Secretary Clinton's staff before being approached by a member of the security detail, demanding Lafferty follow him. When asked why she was being removed from the reception hall, the security detail announced that a phone call had identified Lafferty as a "security threat" to Secretary Clinton.
"I was shocked and angry at the pressure and shameful intimidation tactics our State Department put on, even to the point of identifying me as a threat to Hillary Clinton."
Secretary Clinton in a June 2011 conference in Istanbul, Turkey remarked how certain comments from those concerned about Islamic fanaticism have been deemed as "incendiary" and looked to sympathize with efforts that would criminalize certain speech that is "an incitement to imminent violence."
"This language -- "incitement to imminent violence" -- has been used time and time again to close events here in the United States concerning the impact of Islamic shariah law, detain law-abiding Christians elsewhere, and now even target and detain as security threats people from State Department events," said Lafferty.
"The very restriction on free speech the UN Resolution was pushing is exactly what they used against me," said Lafferty.
"I had warned previously how members of the U.S. State Department and Hillary Clinton have pointedly remarked that part of the implementation of U.N. Resolution 16/18 will be an effort to utilize "techniques of peer pressure and shaming" to silence critics of Islamic shariah," said Lafferty. "Little did I realize how quickly Clinton and her Islamist friends were set to make examples out of law-abiding Americans."
 
 
 

From ACT! for America 'Could you be a criminal?'

 
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 1:20 PM
Subject: 'Could you be a criminal?'
homelearnactdonatelocal chaptersContact Congress
ACT! for America

January 5, 2012

"Could you be a criminal?"

State Department partners with Organization of Islamic Cooperation in what could lead to criminalizing free speech


Dear Lee,

"That could never happen here."

When we shine a light on the conviction of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Austria for "denigrating religion," that's how some people respond.

Or when we warn about sharia law creeping into America. Or 85 sharia courts in Britain. Or "no go zones" in France.

And of course, our State Department would NEVER agree to a UN resolution that has the practical effect of criminalizing free speech, right?

The column below that recently appeared in Forbes (highlights added) is longer than we normally put out, but it is SO IMPORTANT that you be aware of what's coming our way. Please take a few minutes to read it—because your first amendment rights may soon be in jeopardy.

Of course, that could never happen here.



Could You Be A Criminal? US Supports UN Anti-Free Speech Measure

Abigail R. Esman, Contributor

http://www.forbes.com/sites/abigailesman/2011/12/30/could-you-be-a-criminal-us-supports-un-anti-free-speech-measure/


While you were out scavenging the Wal-Mart super sales or trying on trinkets at T iffany and Cartier, your government has been quietly wrapping up a Christmas gift of its own: adoption of UN resolution 16/18. An initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly Organization of Islamic Conferences), the confederacy of 56 Islamic states, Resolution 16/18 seeks to limit speech that is viewed as "discriminatory" or which involves the "defamation of religion" – specifically that which can be viewed as "incitement to imminent violence."

Whatever that means.

Initially proposed in response to alleged discrimination against Muslims in the aftermath of 9/11 and in an effort to clamp down on anti-Muslim attacks in non-Muslim countries, Resolution 16/18 has been through a number of revisions over the years in order to make it palatable to American representatives concerned about U.S. Constitutional guarantees of free speech. Previous versions of the Resolution, which sought to criminalize blasphemous speech and the "defamation of religion," were regularly rejected by the American delegation and by the US State Department, which insisted that limitations on speech – even speech deemed to be racist or blasphemous – were at odds with the Constitution. But this latest version, which includes the "incitement to imminent violence" phrase – that is, which criminalizes speech which incites violence against others on the basis of religion, race, or national origin – has succeeded in winning US approval –despite the fact that it (indirectly) places limitations as well on speech considered "blasphemous."

What's worse, the measure codifies into the UN agenda support for the very notion democracies now wrestle with, and which threatens to destroy the very fabric of our culture: tolerance of the intolerant, or rather, the question of whether a tolerant society must also tolerate ways of life that are intolerant – that oppress women, say, or advocate violence against homosexuals, or force strangers to marry against their will. It is, in fact, this very concept that the OIC has long pressured Western governments to adopt in other ways, and that those supporting the adoption of Sharia law in the west have emphasized. Yet if we fall into that trap – as it appears we are – we will have lost the very heart of who we are.

The Good, The Bad…

Those who support the new measure rightly laud its recognition of the importance of free debate. and the inclusion of new clauses that call for "speaking out against intolerance, including advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence" and "[foster ing] religious freedom and pluralism by promoting the ability of members of all religious communities to manifest their religion, and to contribute openly and on an equal footing to society."

What opponents (rightly) find distressing are calls to adopt "measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief."

(Additional clauses that call for countering religious profiling are also questionable, however civil rights organizations may feel about this, given the problems of Islamic terrorism in the real world. But that's another matter.)

Oddly, Human Rights First, which previously loudly opposed the initiative for its limitation on "blasphemous speech," is among those who now praise the newer version. In a statement, the organization opined:

Rather than imposing new restrictions on freedom of speech, which it does not, the new consensus resolution opens the door to an action-oriented approach to fighting religious intolerance. That is very consistent with the U.S. policies and practices – combat violence, discrimination and hatred without restricting freedom of speech. Resolution 16/18 urges states to train government officials to address religious tensions, to harmonize actions at local and national level, to raise awareness of negative stereotyping of persons, to promote interfaith and intercultural dialogue, to foster religious freedom and to speak out against intolerance (among other recommendations). The only limitation on speech that is in the operative part of the resolution is incitement to "imminent violence", which is in accordance with US law.

But others are less forgiving, noting, among other things, that the resolution does nothing to prevent the continued use of anti-Jewish materials in the schools of Saudi Arabia (where the Protocols of Zion are treated as fact, thereby absolving Saudis of charges of "racism") or the ongoing persecution of Jews and Christians in numerous Muslim countries. And yet, ironically,it was exactly those same countries who initiated the motion, as put forth in its initial drafts by the General Assembly, with expressions of concern for "cases motivated by Islamophobia, Judeophobia, and Christanophobia."

Indeed, as M. Zuhdi Jasser, an observant American Muslim and the founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, remarked in an e-mail, "Anyone who believes that Resolution 16'18 is some kind of a breakthrough is sadly being duped by the most obvious Islamist double discourse. The shift from 'defamation' to 'incitement' does nothing at all to change the basic paradigm where Islamist nations remain in the offen se, continuing to put Western, free nations on the defense." Rather, said Jasser, "We should be putting Islamist autocracies on the defense and then simply reiterate that our First Amendment principles already protect the rights of all minorities — whether Muslim or otherwise — and that the best standard of free speech is the American one. Beginning to categorize speech as 'incitement' is a slippery slope that could open the floodgates for any post-tragedy analysis to indict what would otherwise be free speech absurdly as incitement in some far-fetched cause-effect analysis that would depend on proving that speech causes violence."

Exactly.

It is, indeed, galling to think that we would enter into negotiations of any kind, with anyone, about the freedom of expression that is so central to our very way of life and the core of the founding of America. Ever.

The background to all of this, unsurprisingly, is an effort on the part of Muslim countries to limit what they consider to be defamatory and blasphemous speech: criticism of Islam, say, or insulting the prophet Mohammed – which, as we've learned, can mean anything from drawing a cartoon or making a joke in a comedy sketch to burning a Koran. Such acts – according to some readings of the Koran and, indeed, according to law in some IOC countries – are punishable by death. Hence the riots that met the publication of the so-called "Danish cartoons," the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the murder of Theo van Gogh, and on and on.

… And The Deceptive

And here's where Resolution 16/18 gets tricky.

Because who, exactly, arbitrates what is "incitement to imminent violence"? Violence by whom? If drawing a caricature of the Prophet incites violence by Islamic radicals to the tune of riots, arson, and murder, all sanctioned by the IOC itself – then drawing such a caricature (or writing a book like the Satanic Verses) will now constitute a criminal act. And that is exactly what the OIC was aiming for. It is also in direct violation of the principles of Western democracy – and the First Amendment. (Though it is crucial to note that any resolution passed by the General Assembly remains nonbinding, which makes you sort of wonder what the point of all this is, anyway.)

Moreover, since many would claim that the persecution of blasphemers is mandated by their religion, conflicts emerge between guarantees of free expression and the guarantee of freedom of religion and the practice of one's faith. In othr words: your free speech allows you to insult my prophet: my freedom of religion compels me to kill you for it.

What was that about "incitement to violence"?
Whose violence?

This is how the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation plays "Gotcha.

This is how the American government, however unwittingly, subsumes its own Constitution in deference ot the demands of the Islamic state.

It's a dangerous game.

True, the Human Rights First position on the issue is significantly more optimistic:

"The U.S. will always enforce its own standards on freedom of expression; these are enshrined in this country's Constitution. But its legal exceptionalism on freedom of spee ch does not necessarily mean that the U.S. administration needs to be diplomatically isolated when it comes to promoting globally the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, which many in the U.S. perceive to be core and founding American values. On the contrary, since the U.S. joined the U.N. Human Rights Council, the Obama administration has openly expressed its ambition to exert leadership within the U.N. body.

The U.S. demonstrated that leadership by securing the passage of Resolution 16/18 at the Human Rights Council and by moving immediately to show through the Istanbul Process Conference that states have tools at their disposal to combat violence, discrimination and hatred without restricting free speech."

But note that word: "combat." That same word appears in Resolution 16/18, which states "Understanding the need to combat denigration and negative religious stereotyping of persons, as well as incitement to religious hatred, by strategizing and harmonizing actions at the local, national, regional and international levels through, inter alia, education and awareness building." (Emphasis mine.)

"Combat" implies warfare. Is that the language we want here? Is that one of the options under the vague and wide-open term "inter alia"? And are the "tools at their disposal" – education, interfaith dialogue, and debate — really going to "combat" hatred, especially when that hatred is disguised as proper adherence to one's faith? When racist myths are taught as historical fact to children across a large swath of the globe?

As for that "faith" thing: it strikes me that those of no faith – atheists – are not addressed anywhere in t his resolution. Are they also to be protected from hate crimes? Is atheism among the ideas to be debated and taught in these awareness-raising sessions? If so, why is that not so stated? If not, why not?

Then there is the ongoing whimpering about the "targeting" of Muslims in non-Muslim countries. Actually, that "targeting" is largely mythical, or at the very least, heavily exaggerated. Throughout the world, from France to the Netherlands to Germany to the United States of America, the majority – by a large margin – of those hate crimes and incidents of discrimination perpetrated on the basis of religion target Jews. (another resource available here) And in virtually every case, the "extremism" in question has been Islamic extremism. (Though recent reports of the despicable behavior or ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel puts a new perspective on the matter.)

The Bigger Picture

But here's the biggest problem: when the exercise of free speech leads to violence far beyond our control. It's called "terrorism." And neither the U.N. General Assembly nor the United States of America has the power to stop it. More importantly: by agreeing to curb speech that could lead to "imminent violence," we in essence accept the blame for any terrorist acts against America (and the West). We agreed not to provoke, after all.

This, of course, is an unacceptable paradigm, and one we cannot allow to stand.

Integral to the greatness of America is the simple fact that no other country in the world places so sacred a value on free speech – indeed, on free expression – as does the United States. Holocaust denial, for instance, is verboten in Germany. Mein Kampf is banned in the Netherlands. France last week criminalized the denial of the Armenian genocide in Turkey (an act that resulted in widespread condemnation by the OIC, whose Secretary General, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, had the audacity, days after the ratification of 16/18, to bluster that those who defend cartoons that mock Mohammed as "freedom of thought and expression" have no business limiting the speech of those who deny the Armenian genocide. "This is an indisputable and unacceptable paradox," he declared). And so on.

Yet in all of this, America has stood strong in its defense of free speech – even blasphemous, hateful, racist, sexist, Pentecostal, homophobic, and ignorant speech. We must continue to do so, no matter what pressures we may face. Because in the end, limiting our rights to self-expression and – above all – the questioning of religious beliefs – will never help to make the world more peaceful – or more free.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Make sure you receive all of your messages from ACT for America. Add actforamerica@donationnet.net to your address book as an approved email sender. If you found this message in your "Bulk" or "Spam" folder, please click the "Not Spam" button to notify your provider that these are emails you want to receive.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ACT for America
P.O. Box 12765
Pensacola, FL 32591
www.actforamerica.org


ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America's national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.

The news items, blogs, educational materials and other information in our emails and on our website are only intended to provide information, news and commentary on events and issues related to the threat of radical Islam. Much of this information is based upon media sources, such as the AP wire services, newspapers, magazines, books, online news blog and news services, and radio and television, which we deem to be reliable. However, we have undertaken no independent investigation to verify the accuracy of the information reported by these media sources. We therefore disclaim all liability for false or inaccurate information from these media sources. We also disclaim all liability for the third-party information that may be accessed through the material referenced in our emails or posted on our website.


HOW CAN I TELL OTHERS ABOUT YOUR ORGANIZATION?
Send a personalized version of this message to your friends.

HOW CAN I SUPPORT YOUR ORGANIZATION?
Click here to give an online donation.

"Avoiding visceral reactions and defeatism," or "Don't lie (usually)--sometimes the reality ain't that bad"

"Avoiding visceral reactions and defeatism," or "Don't lie (usually)--sometimes the reality ain't that bad"
-
By Me
05 JAN 2012 (please, do not in the future alter this date to create a perennial email)
-
-
-
All activists work to stir up followers by pointing out potential future dangers to their cause. This is fine and good (presuming the cause is good, of course). What is not good is when an activist takes a "sky is falling" approach.
-
Sometimes an activist organization will exaggerate a particular threat. Take, for example, how the "National Association for Gun Rights," a NRA rival which has done little more than produce a few good YouTube videos, for YEARS sought to make hay--and donations--by warning of "HR 45," a gun control bill which never went anywhere in the House of Representatives. Yet if one reads NAGR's emails, one would think the country was on the verge of seeing the Second Amendment repealed. These activists pushed toward the status of "alarmists."
-
Sometimes, activists will mischaracterize the entire debate, saying their cause is suffering and even losing. Listening to them gives the impression that the situation is increasingly bad for the cause, comparable to, say, what Nazi Germany might have accurately said in the spring of 1945. Defeat is imminent--unless, of course, the listener makes an immediate contribution. Such tactics, when they rise to that level, often backfire with conservative causes, as it gives conservatives--who are self-centered and "introspective" by nature, and not "activist"--an excuse to give up the effort and save their money.
-
The Second Amendment arena sees its share of this latter type. "Purist" groups like "Gun Owners of America" and "But I Wanna Own a Machine Gun/WMD Combo Set" (that last group probably does not exist) will claim the Second Amendment is not merely "under fire," but in fact bogged down at the Alamo. Now indeed, such a situation seemed true--a few decades ago. The 1960s saw the biggest loss of gun rights since the 1934 National Firearms Act regulated machine guns and short-barreled weapons. The 1970s saw regulatory battles, with one victory by pro-gunners in removing firearms products from the purview of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (heading off an effort to use regulate pistol ammunition as a "hazardous substance"). The 1980s featured state-level "assault weapons" bans and a national import ban in the 1990, countered only by the largely-ineffective 1986 "Firearms Owners Protection Act"--which, ironically, included a freeze on the number of legal privately-held machine guns. The 1990s, of course, featured the infamous nation-wide "assault weapons ban"--actually a freeze--and tightening regulations in places like California and New York (city and state). This condition was lightened, however, by the election of a pro-gun Congress in 1994 and increasing numbers of states adopting shall-issue concealed-carry permit systems, a trend which started in Florida in 1987. Notwithstanding, through all of this, public sentiment was indeed on the side of increasing gun regulations, with a clear majority wanting substantially stronger controls on "handguns". Things did indeed look bad.
-
But since then, three things have happened to completely shift the debate. They can be summarized as, "Y2K," "911," and "BHO." The Y2K computer glitch threat--itself something subject to "sky is falling" alarmism (even though some would argue it would have been a good thing)--caused people who previously had been nearly pacifist to consider the efficacy of arming themselves to prepare for possible chaos. Discount chains which had only years ago ceased to sell pistols were seen selling pistol-grip stockless shotguns--a weapon useful only for anti-personnel use. And ammunition was, in the words of one sporting goods department manager, "flying off the shelf." People were rethinking their attitude on the whole issue. This culminated in the post-Y2K victory of a (relatively) pro-gun Presidential administration in 2000, an election the outgoing rather anti-gun President attributed to the Second Amendment lobby, specifically identifying the National Rifle Association as responsible for his Vice President's electoral defeat.
-
Then, on September 11, 2001, the war of Jihad which had faced the Western world since 622 AD/CE was brought to American shores in no uncertain terms. The "911" Jihadist terrorist attacks spawned a huge jump in weapons sales even that very day (spirring some retail chains, and isolated managements in particular stores, to shamefully cease ammunition sales for a day). Uncertainty which was far more imminent and tangible was leading people back to their Y2K course of thinking. People who had bought those stockless shotguns in 1999 were dusting them off, and those who had sold them off in 2000 after nothing happened were cursing that decision. The national attitude toward the private right to arms was shifting substantially to the positive. This was so much the case, in fact, that in 2006, when seditious and treasonous elements in the country turned the gullible American populace to use a Congressional election to betray their troops by denouncing a war they had only two years before upheld despite charges of lies by the administration, members of the opposition "anti-war" (i.e., anti-American)--and traditionally anti-gun--party often had to be expressly pro-gun to get elected. The "assault weapons" freeze was allowed to expire in 2004. No serious or substantial new gun controls were successfully proposed, and concealed-carry options continued to spread through the several states. The country's war effort and the effort of Western civilization to counter a perennial threat was weakened in 2006, but the private right to arms in America was actually improving.
-
Then in 2008, there was "BHO"--"Barack Hussein Obama". In their effort to assuage White Liberal Guilt and throw a temper tantrum over the economy by electing a socialist, Black nationalist Muslim as President (pResident), the American people created a social situation where gun rights were more overtly threatened than at any time in history. Weapons and ammunition sales skyrocketed to unbelievable levels before and long after the fateful election, taking prices up with them. Yet sales continued. And subsequent polling data indicates rapidly DECREASING support for gun regulations. The 2010 election results, though influenced mostly by the selfish and money-minded (such as its adherents actually have minds) "Tea Party" movement, further strengthened the pro-gun character of Congress.
-
However, one development, occuring not in the real world, but in the illusional world of jurisprudence, stands out on the matter of gun rights: The 2008 Supreme Court Heller decision. That decision for the first time upheld the Second Amendment as an individual right. This court decision marks perhaps the biggest turning point for gun rights since the 1939 Miller case cast doubt on the Second Amendment's meaning. Heller and the subsequence McDonald decision applying Fourteenth Amendment incorporation to the Second and making it binding on states, have brought about a complete reversal in legal presumption. Whereas before challenging a gun law in court put the burden of proof on proving it to not be constitutional, Heller and McDonald serve to put a burden on proving the law indeed is constitutional.
-
Interestingly, back in the real world, another development, this one in almost an homage to the Y2K era, at least one major discount chain to remain nameless--but its initials are "W-M"--is offering AR15s, a so-called, "assault weapon." In addition to pointing to a shift in both public interest in such arms and regular consumers' tolerance of selling such items in business with a "family" reputation, this development goes far to making the case that such weapons are indeed in "common use," a matter raised by the 2008 Supreme Court Heller decision as to what weapons are protected by the Second Amendment--"Hey, if [W-M] is selling them, they MUST be in 'common use'!"
-
In a very real and objective sense, gun rights and the Second Amendment movement have never been stronger in modern times.
-
Yet one will still hear marginal activist groups talk about this or that threat--e.g., HR 45--as imminent, or characterize just how its cause is on the defensive. What so many won't consider is that since the 1999 Columbine massacre, effort after effort to exploit on the national level some "tragedy" to substantively increase gun control legislation has failed, often never making it out of Congressional committees.
-
Consider this from the today's (05 JAN 2012--please, do not in the future alter this date to create a perennial email) article from Reuters, "FBI data shows spike in U.S. firearm purchases in 2011" ( http://news.yahoo.com/fbi-data-shows-spike-firearm-purchases-2011-045125172.html ). Regarding the aftermath of the 2009 Tuscon, Arizona shootings of a liberal politician by a Leftist mental case (and subsequently blamed on one of the most conservative politicians on the political scene at the time), it states,
-
'PACKING HEAT'
The FBI data for 2011 was released close to the January 8 anniversary of the shooting rampage in Tucson, Arizona, that killed 6 people and injured 13, including Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords.
That incident raised serious questions about the background checks after it emerged that Jared Lee Loughner, the accused shooter, had legally purchased the gun he allegedly used in the attack from a sporting goods store - despite having engaged in bizarre, disruptive behavior well before the shooting.
While the FBI data show the number of background checks have risen, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence says there has been no progress on legislative efforts to tighten gun control following the Tucson shooting.
Dennis Henigan, the group's acting president, told Reuters the only gun bill that has come for a vote in Congress since Tucson has been the so-called "Packing Heat On Your Street" bill, officially known as "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011" (H.R. 822).
That measure, which has passed the House of Representatives but stalled in the Senate, would make it easier for people to carry concealed handguns across state lines.
"Really it is a national disgrace that the only piece of gun-related legislation to come to a vote since Tucson was this legislation that would have enabled dangerous concealed carriers like Jared Loughner to carry their guns across state lines," Henigan said.
-
Now consider: The situation is so "bad" for the Second Amendment movement that following this event we see in Congress considering... making it easier to carry a weapon! Truly dark times for gun rights. NOT!
-
Indeed, this little snippit shows perhaps more than any other that the country is truly in "pro-gun" times. Even as events like the 1991 Los Angeles riots not leading to restrictions on Black people and 911 not (unfortunately) leading to restrictions on Muslims shows the establishment of a "civil rights" mentality in America, the consistent failure in the last decade plus to use extreme events to successfully restrict arms-bearers is indicative of a "new reality" in gun rights.
-
Now, to be sure, this is not to argue that gun rights have reached the level of protection from law, custom, and society that, say, "civil rights" have reached, or that there is no threat. Indeed, unlike liberal/Left movements like "civil rights," conservative/Right movements like gun rights suffer tremendous obstacles such as an opposition mainstream media and self-focus on the part of their rank-and-file adherents. Letting down by the movement would invite disaster for the movement.
-
However, the answer to stirring followers to action lies not in "gloom and doom" predictions. To be sure, conservatives--and quite frankly, the Second Amendment community is one of the worst constituencies on this--are self-centered and often reason that, "Well, my personal interests on this are secure, so I don't care anymore," false negatives, as said before, too often turn them to a "Well, it's lost, so I won't work anymore" attitude of defeatism, thus defeating the aim. What is needed is to create by whatever political means an attitude of positive/affirmative effort--that is, trying to expand gun rights and expand their security to new heights. The Second Amendment community needs to use this opportunity, legally empowered by Heller and McDonald to take the offensive and attack the opposing movement, not simply be introspective and self-centered.
-
Please see this article from 01 JUL 2011 on The American Thinker entitled "The Need For A Militant Conservative Movement" ( http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_need_for_a_militant_conservative_movement.html ) for a further discussion of this problem on the Right, and a suggested solution. While I disagree with some characterizations in the last half of the article and believe the writer fails to go far enough with his solution, it marks a serious and still-timely effort to counter the fundamental weakness of conservatism--self-focus. So long as the American people insist upon "liberal democracy" and electing their own leaders, the only viable approach is to act to turn people from a defensive mentality to an offensive one. The domestic political aspect of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) suffered because the administration refused to attack its critics with the means available to them. (To be sure, it barely defended itself as well.) The result was a betrayal of American troops and the strengthening of the Jihadist threat. Strategically, GWOT is potentially failing because of insistence by Leftists, along with Tea Party and Ron Paul/libertarians on the Right, to weaken efforts and act only defensively. This despite the success in diverting enemy attention into a defensive mode--difficult to do with terrorists--by the offensive actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere.
-
A defense-only strategy is a losing strategy, as an offensive enemy will wear the defense, much as a tug-of-war team which will only "hold on" and not try to gain ground will ultimately lose to a comparable side which is actually pulling for victory. And in politics, the liberal/Left will always have an advantage. The Second Amendment movement will lose its gains if people do not exploit the current advances. Failure by conservative movements to do this in the past--notably, a failure to use favorable Supreme Court decisions on the Tenth Amendment in the early 1990s to actively seek to roll back federal encroachment on the states--represent squandered opportunities and sometimes the solidification of opposition positions. The Second Amendment movement ought to learn from both the successes of the Left in taking the offense and the failures of the Right in sticking to defense to pursue an offensive mentality on the right to arms (and on GWOT, for that matter).
-
In conclusion, alarmist actions--particularly on the conservative/Right--are so often demoralizing and counterproductive if they misrepresent the situation. Selfishness--such as the tendency in the Second Amendment community to be individualists and focus on simply "keeping one's own guns"--holds an inherent moral weakness that turns such approaches into suicide. Truthfullness is the best option in politics, particularly on the Right (with lies kept well thought out and to a minimum), as it holds both moral strength and credibility-building. Stirring up a confident OFFENSIVE attitude offers the best--and probably only--viable option for success.
-
AND FOR YOUR EDIFICATION AND ENJOYMENT BY MEANS OF MUSIC: "God and Guns," by Lynyrd Skynyrd ( http://youtu.be/Ql49eLRRJ_E ).
-
(Lynyrd Skynyrd was the group that in the 1970s recorded the anti-gun, "Saturday Night Special". Yes, there has been a shift.)

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

LOL Check out the YouTube comment I left on a Tea Party video!

I wonder how long my comment will be left up. 
 
 
Uploaded by ShenAreaWorkGroup on Sep 30, 2011
September 11, 2011 - Michael Del Rosso discusses the Shariah threat at an event sponsored by the Valley Family Forum and the Shenandoah Valley Tea Party Patriots (emphasis added) in Harrisonburg, VA. Del Rosso is a Senior Research Fellow at the Claremont Institute, Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Plicy in Washington, D.C., and co-author of "Shariah: The Threat to America."
 
MY COMMENT: Attention "Shenandoah Valley Tea Party Patriots": Why would you sponsor such a person? He's talking about national security, not the economy and your precious pocketbooks and portfolios. And as "Tea Party Patriots," you oppose national security (Google "Tea partiers say defense in mix for budget cuts").  [LINK NOT SPELLED OUT ON YOUTUBE, PER ITS POSTING POLICY: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/23/tea-partiers-say-defense-mix-budget-cuts/ ]
 
LOL "Tea Party PATRIOTS".  I always laugh at that oxymoron.
 
 


Elect Obama, you get more of this. Elect Ron Paul, you get even more than that!

Leftists, Paultards/libertarians, and Tea Partiers ("Tea Party patriot" is an OXYMORON (link) ) = The Unholy Trinity of American Sellouts.

Obama plans to cut tens of thousands of ground troops

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration will unveil a "more realistic" vision for the military on Thursday, with plans to cut tens of thousands of ground troops and invest more in air and sea power at a time of fiscal restraint, officials familiar with the plans said on Wednesday.
The strategic review of U.S. security interests will also emphasize an American presence in Asia, with less attention overall to Europe, Africa and Latin America alongside slower growth in the Pentagon's budget, the officials said.
Though specific budget cut and troop reduction figures are not set to be announced on Thursday, officials confirmed to Reuters they would amount to a 10-15 percent decline in Army and Marine Corps numbers over the next decade, translating to tens of thousands of troops.
The most profound shift in the strategic review is an acceptance that the United States, even with the world's largest military budget, cannot afford to maintain the ground troops to fight more than one major war at once. That is a move away from the "win-win" strategy that has dominated Pentagon funding decisions for decades.
...
'BASICALLY DISAPPEAR'
"When some army brigades start coming out of Afghanistan, they will basically disappear," one official said.
Many of the key U.S. military partners in the NATO alliance are also facing tough defense budget cuts as a result of fiscal strains gripping the European Union.
The president may face criticism from defense hawks in Congress, many of them opposition Republicans, who question his commitment to U.S. military strength.
...
The military could be forced to cut another $600 billion in defense spending over 10 years unless Congress takes action to stop a second round of cuts mandated in the August accord.
...
"From an operational perspective it's ... an opportune time to take a look at what the U.S. military is doing and what it should be doing or should be preparing itself to do over the next 10 to 15 years," he said on Wednesday.
"So, yes, the budget cuts are certainly a driver here, but so quite frankly are current events," Kirby said.
(Additional reporting by Caren Bohan; Editing by Will Dunham)
COMPLETE ARTICLE AT LINK

A song and video for the kids

I recently read of a school "allowing"--we all know they actually compelled--third graders to write and sing a song celebrating the "Occupy" bums ( http://www.theblaze.com/stories/va-school-district-defends-shocking-occupy-themed-song-performed-by-third-graders-im-so-happy-to-be-part-of-the-99/ ). Well, whereas it is now acceptable to use such propaganda techniques, I am suggesting school children be taught to sing a very slightly (for terminology) edited version of this song. In addition, even as is, the video would be good for impressing positive lessons on our young people in America and the West.




http://youtu.be/AqxcFvk3w-s


The Iowa caucus results (tweet)

 
Lee Thomas Walker
Romney&Santorum tie/Paultard 3/Newt slithers in @ 4/Perry probably out/Bachmann should consider shorter skirts--won't help her, but so what?


Tuesday, January 3, 2012

From ACT! for America: A black day for free speech



 
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2012 1:35 PM
Subject: A black day for free speech
homelearnactdonatelocal chaptersContact Congress
ACT! for America

January 3, 2012

A Black Day for freedom

of speech


Dear Lee,

Two weeks ago, an Austrian appellate court upheld the conviction of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff on charges of "denigrating religious beliefs" (see story below).

Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff is one of ACT! for America's international chapter leaders.

ACT! for America has contributed to Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff's legal defense fund and encourages concerned citizens to do the same. Log on here if you would like to make a contribution to her legal defense fund. We know Elisabeth's situation—she needs a lot of help if she is to continue fighting this on appeal. She is, indeed, fighting for the rights of all of us.

This back-door imposition of sharia law will not end in Austria. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), representing all 56 Muslim countries, has won the support of top officials in our State Department in its efforts to criminalize "defamation" of religion. (It is a violation of sharia law to "defame" Islam, Allah or Mohammed.)


In a move clearly designed to intimidate those who oppose the OIC's effort, Hillary Clinton's security personnel detained Andrea Lafferty, president of the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC), at the closing event of a recent conference aimed at promoting this draconian effort. Lafferty was told she had been identified as a "security threat" to the Secretary of State. (See the TVC story here.)

For four years we have been warning America that our freedom of speech is under assault from radical Islam and its politically correct enablers and apologists. As you can see, we don't cry wolf.



"A Black Day for Austria"

by Soeren Kern
December 26, 2011 at 5:00 am


http://www.hudson-ny.org/2702/sabaditsch-wolff-appeal


An Austrian appellate court has upheld the conviction of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a Viennese housewife and anti-Jihad activist, for "denigrating religious beliefs" after giving a series of seminars about the dangers of radical Islam.

The December 20 ruling shows that while Judaism and Christianity can be disparaged with impunity in postmodern multicultural Austria, speaking the truth about Islam is subject to swift and hefty legal penalties.

Although the case has major implications for freedom of speech in Austria, as well as in Europe as a whole, it has received virtually no press coverage in the American mainstream media.

Sabaditsch-Wolff's Kafkaesque legal problems began in November 2009, when she presented a three-part seminar about Islam to the Freedom Education Institute, a political academy linked to the Austrian Freedom Party.

A glossy socialist weekly magazine, NEWS -- all in capital letters -- planted a journalist in the audience to secretly record the first two lectures. Lawyers for the leftwing publication then handed the transcripts over to the Viennese public prosecutor's office as evidence of hate speech against Islam, according to Section 283 of the Austrian Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB). Formal charges against Sabaditsch-Wolff were filed in September 2010; and her bench trial, presided on by one multicultural judge and no jury, began November 23, 2010.

On the first day of the trial, however, it quickly became clear that the case against Sabaditsch-Wolff was not as air-tight as prosecutors had made it out to be. The judge in the case, Bettina Neubauer, pointed out, for example, that only 30 minutes of the first seminar had actually been recorded.

Neubauer also noted that some of the statements attributed to Sabaditsch-Wolff were offhand comments made during breaks and not a formal part of the seminar. Moreover, only a few people heard these comments, not 30 or more -- the criterion under Austrian law for a statement being "public." In any event, Sabaditsch-Wolff says her comments were not made in a public forum because the seminars were held for a select group of people who had registered beforehand.

More importantly, many of the statements attributed to Sabaditsch-Wolff were actually quotes she made directly from the Koran and other Islamic religious texts. Fearing that the show trial would end in a mistrial, the judge abruptly suspended hearings until January 18, 2011, ostensibly to give him time to review the tape recordings, but also to give the prosecution more time to shore up its case.

On January 18, after realizing that the original charge would not hold up, the judge -- not the prosecutor -- informed Sabaditsch-Wolff that in addition to the initial charge of hate speech, she was now being charged with "denigrating religious symbols of a recognized religious group." Sabaditsch-Wolff's lawyer immediately demanded that the trial be postponed so that the defense could prepare a new strategy.

When the trial resumed on February 15, 2011, Sabaditsch-Wolff was exonerated of the first charge of "incitement" because the court found that here statements were not made in a "provocative" manner.

But Sabaditsch-Wolff was convicted of the second charge against her, namely "denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion," according to Section 188 of the Austrian Criminal Code.

The judge ruled that Sabaditsch-Wolff committed a crime by stating in her seminars about Islam that the Islamic prophet Mohammed was a pedophile (Sabaditsch-Wolff's actual words were "Mohammed had a thing for little girls.")

The judge rationalized that Mohammed's sexual contact with nine-year-old Aisha could not be considered pedophilia because Mohammed continued his marriage to Aisha until his death. According to this line of thinking, Mohammed had no exclusive desire for underage girls; he was also attracted to older females because Aisha was 18 years old when Mohammed died.

The judge ordered Sabaditsch-Wolff to pay a fine of €480 ($625) or an alternative sentence of 60 days in prison. Moreover, she was required to pay the costs of the trial. Although at first glance the fine may appear trivial -- the fine was reduced to 120 "day rates" of €4 each because Sabaditsch-Wolff is a housewife with no income -- the actual fine would have been far higher if she had had income.

Sabaditsch-Wolff appealed the conviction to the Provincial Appellate Court (Oberlandesgericht Wien) in Vienna, but that appeal was rejected on December 20. The court says she will go to prison if the fine is not paid within the next six months. She says she will take the case to the Strasbourg-based European Court for Human Rights.

After the trial, Sabaditsch-Wolff said her conviction represented "a black day for Austria." The Vienna Federation of Academics (Wiener Akademikerbund) said the ruling represented "politically and sentimentally motivated justice" and marked "the end of freedom of expression in Austria."

Sabaditsch-Wolff is not the only Austrian to run afoul of the country's anti-free speech laws. In January 2009, Susanne Winter, an Austrian politician and Member of Parliament, was convicted for the "crime" of saying that "in today's system" the Mohammed would be considered a "child molester," referring to his marriage to Aisha. Winter was also convicted of "incitement" for saying that Austria faces an "Islamic immigration tsunami." Winters was ordered to pay a fine of €24,000 ($31,000), and received a suspended three-month prison sentence.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Make sure you receive all of your messages from ACT for America. Add actforamerica@donationnet.net to your address book as an approved email sender. If you found this message in your "Bulk" or "Spam" folder, please click the "Not Spam" button to notify your provider that these are emails you want to receive.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ACT for America
P.O. Box 12765
Pensacola, FL 32591
www.actforamerica.org


ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America's national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.

The news items, blogs, educational materials and other information in our emails and on our website are only intended to provide information, news and commentary on events and issues related to the threat of radical Islam. Much of this information is based upon media sources, such as the AP wire services, newspapers, magazines, books, online news blog and news services, and radio and television, which we deem to be reliable. However, we have undertaken no independent investigation to verify the accuracy of the information reported by these media sources. We therefore disclaim all liability for false or inaccurate information from these media sources. We also disclaim all liability for the third-party information that may be accessed through the material referenced in our emails or posted on our website. 



HOW CAN I TELL OTHERS ABOUT YOUR ORGANIZATION?
Send a personalized version of this message to your friends.

HOW CAN I SUPPORT YOUR ORGANIZATION?
Click here to give an online donation.