America Wasn’t Created So That Other Countries Would Like Us!

Canada Free Press

Maybe, one day, the human inhabitants of planet Earth will be one people under one government, but that model will not work in today’s stark cultural, political, religious and geographical realities.  For now, every country must operate from its own self interests, the vigorous protection of its own borders and the preservation of its own political, cultural and geographical sovereignty.

If it does not do so, it most likely will trigger that country’s eventual cultural, historical, economic and geographical demise, with a distinct possibility of being conquered by a stronger power.  The issues of sovereignty have absolutely nothing to do with other countries liking their neighbors, or the planet’s super powers.

Even worse, a country cannot withstand wide cultural, language, religious and political divides from within.  The wider the divides, the greater the chance for rising anger and frustration, which will lead to separation, segregation and conflict and could eventually lead to civil war.  That cultural divide in America is never more apparent than it is today, much of it forced upon us by a government who has lost all allegiance to the foundation of liberty and only seeks absolute power.

America was not created for other countries to like us.  It was created as a haven for individual freedom and the pursuit of happiness by and through the rewards of individual achievement, in a political climate unfettered by an aggressive or oppressive government.  As a result of that freedom, America has become one of the most powerful, industrious, creative and most generous countries, among all other nations on Earth.

But envy is an insidious motivator for those countries who have not achieved what America has achieved.  Envy and fear drive other nations to tear down and vilify America, especially if there is a vehicle or an entity they can use to do the tearing.  The United Nations, an assemblage of almost 200 corrupt countries who dwell in the armpit of oppression, intimidation and fear, would sell their souls to force America to give up her pride, her achievements, her wealth, her resources, her power, her sovereignty and her freedom.  If America capitulates to the dictates of United Nations despots, which it appears it has been doing for the last 50 to 100 years, it can kiss all of that which freedom has created, goodbye.

Last night on CBS’s 60 Minutes, a group of Africans were praising America for its financial help in fighting the African HIV virus.  Millions of African lives have been saved as a result of American generosity.  This financial help was in many billions of dollars that came from the hard work and production of the American people.  They damn well should be grateful because no other nation steps up to world problems as does America.  And even as we step up, the receivers demand even more, saying it is our fair share as recompense for their suffering and the inability of peoples all around this Earth who seem incapable of handling their own problems.  Where would the peoples of this Earth be without the generosity of the American people?  Where indeed!

So, it is of little consequence that other countries like us or not.  What is of consequence, however, is the preservation of American freedom and geographical sovereignty, so that Americans and American freedom can continue to help those who refuse, or can’t, help themselves.  Perhaps instead of helping them with direct outlays of money, we should show them the way to freedom, so that they can then help themselves, as America has done.  It would be much less expensive in the long run.

Ladies and gentlemen, America was not created so that other countries would like us.  It was created as a haven of freedom.  The power, the wealth, the industriousness, the creativity, the generosity and the geographical sovereignty of America that came from that creation, is the last great hope for a world that would go mad, if America was not there to show others the way, or to stop the empirical ambitions of rogue governments.  If American freedom and sovereignty should evaporate, the world will fall into the deadly grip of chaos. Socialist, communist, Islamic countries and dictators will fight amongst themselves in their mad race to divide up the planet’s spoils, that America’s presence prevented them from doing.  In such event, Armageddon could very well descend upon all the human occupants of this third planet from the Sun.

But let’s get back to the domestic front.  We believe that any and all acts by the legislative and executive branches of government, those who wear judicial robes and those who occupy the thousands of bureaucracies in our American government, that work covertly or openly against individual freedom, ignore constitutional limits on power, or apologize for America to the rest of the world, are traitors to the cause of liberty and treasonous dismantlers of American culture, freedom and sovereignty.  Five hundred years ago, the punishment for their treachery would have been the gallows, the guillotine, the firing squad, or burned at the stake.  But today, we are much more civilized.  Instead of punishing the perpetrators, we promote or re-elect them.

Government’s nationalizing the American Health Care industry, banks and other businesses; forcing CO2 emission limits on American citizens and business through cap and trade legislation; granting amnesty to the millions of illegal aliens who have broken our laws and raid our safety nets; radicalizing our public schools with social, environmental and global brainwashing; showing embarrassing weakness in the face of our determined enemies; and gaining absolute power over our domestic energy, water, food and natural resources, are treasonous acts of an out-of-control, arrogant and oppressive government.  Each act flies in the face of the principles of liberty, perpetrated by traitors in our midst.  If allowed to stand, American freedom and liberty will die.  There is no question.

If America dies, the goodness and generosity that were spawned from the birth of freedom on a new continent 234 years ago will be replaced with the evil and violence that comes from government oppression and aggression.  It could be another 200 or 300 years before the seed of individual freedom germinates in the minds of the oppressed, to the point that they will pledge their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to secure freedom by whatever means, or by whatever sacrifice.

If the American people are wise and brave enough, as they once were in a gone by era, they will not let freedom slip from their grasp.  We believe, that in the final analysis, the American people will not let this and future generations down by forsaking that which so many paid the ultimate price in its defense.  Enter, stage right, the tea party movement and the rising voices of the multitudes shouting once again, out of the pages of history, “… give me liberty, or give me death!”  And so it was written and so it shall be done.


Court: FCC has no power to regulate Net neutrality

cnet news

The Federal Communications Commission does not have the legal authority to slap Net neutrality regulations on Internet providers, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

A three-judge panel in Washington, D.C. unanimously tossed out the FCC’s August 2008 cease and desist order against Comcast, which had taken measures to slow BitTorrent transfers before voluntarily ending them earlier that year.

Because the FCC “has failed to tie its assertion” of regulatory authority to an actual law enacted by Congress, the agency does not have the power to regulate an Internet provider’s network management practices, wrote Judge David Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Tuesday’s decision could doom one of the signature initiatives of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a Democrat. Last October, Genachowski announced plans to begin drafting a formal set of Net neutrality rules–even though Congress has not given the agency permission to do so. That push is opposed by Verizon and other broadband providers.

Comcast welcomed the ruling in a statement that said: “Our primary goal was always to clear our name and reputation.” The National Cable and Telecommunications Association, the cable industry’s lobby group, elaborated by saying that Comcast and its other members will “continue to embrace a free and open Internet as the right policy.”

Net neutrality proponents responded to Tuesday’s ruling by saying the FCC should slap landline-style regulations on Internet providers, which could involve price regulation, service quality controls, and technological mandates. The agency “should immediately start a proceeding bringing Internet access service back under some common carrier regulation,” Public Knowledge’s Gigi Sohn said. The Media Access Project said, without mentioning common carrier regulations directly, that the FCC must have the “ability to protect the rights of Internet users to access lawful content and services of their choice.”

In a statement on Tuesday, the FCC indicated that it was thinking along the same lines. The DC Circuit did not “close the door to other methods for achieving this important end,” the agency said. A spokeswoman declined to elaborate.

Early reaction on Capitol Hill cleaved along party lines. Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Texas senator and senior Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee, said: “It would be wrong to double down on excessive and burdensome regulations, and I hope the FCC chairman will now reconsider his decision to pursue expanded commission authority over broadband services.” Rep. Joe Barton, the Texas Republican, warned that “the FCC should not reclassify” broadband providers as common carriers.


But Rep. Ed Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat who had drafted one of the unsuccessful Net neutrality bills, said: “I encourage the (FCC) to take any actions necessary to ensure that consumers and competition are protected on the Internet.” Markey noted that he reintroduced similar legislation last summer–it’s been stuck in a House subcommittee even though House Speaker Nancy Pelosi once said there was an urgent need to enact it.

The FCC had known all along that it was on shaky legal ground. Its vote to take action against Comcast was a narrow 3-2, with the dissenting commissioners predicting at the time that it would not hold up in court. FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, a Republican, said at the time that the FCC’s ruling was unlawful and the lack of legal authority “is sure to doom this order on appeal.”

The ruling also is likely to shift the debate to whether Congress will choose to explicitly grant the FCC the authority to regulate companies’ network management practices. One wildcard: Unless there is a groundswell of complaints about a specific company, as there was with Comcast throttling BitTorrent transfers, there may be little appetite for controversial legislation. And, of course, cable providers have already pledged to keep the Internet open.

In 2006, Congress rejected five bills, backed by groups including Google,, Free Press, and Public Knowledge, that would have handed the FCC the power to police Net neutrality violations. Even though the Democrats have enjoyed a majority on Capitol Hill since 2007, their leadership has shown little interest in resuscitating those proposals.

“We must decide whether the Federal Communications Commission has authority to regulate an Internet service provider’s network management practices,” Tatel wrote in his 36-page opinion. “The Commission may exercise this ‘ancillary’ authority only if it demonstrates that its action–here barring Comcast from interfering with its customers’ use of peer-to-peer networking applications–is ‘reasonably ancillary to the…effective performance of its statutorily mandated responsibilities.'”

In August 2005, the FCC adopted a set of principles saying “consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice.” But the principles also permit providers’ “reasonable network management” and, confusingly, the FCC admitted on the day of their adoption that the guidelines “are not enforceable.”

The FCC’s 2008 vote to punish Comcast stems from a request from Free Press and its political allies, including some Yale, Harvard, and Stanford law school faculty.

This is not the first time that the FCC has been rebuked for enacting regulations without actual legal authority to do so. In 2005, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled the agency did not have the authority to draft its so-called broadcast flag rule. And a federal appeals court in Pennsylvania ruled in the Janet Jackson nipple exposure incident that the FCC’s sanctions against CBS–which publishes CNET News–amounted to an “arbitrary and capricious change of policy.”

Update at 9:15 a.m. PDT: History and more details added.

Update at 11:21 a.m. PDT: More reactions, including Comcast statement, added.

Update 11:25 a.m. PDT: Here’s e-mail I received from Sam Feder, a former FCC general counsel who’s now a partner at the Jenner and Block law firm in Washington: “There are no great paths forward. The court decision is not broad enough to have a good shot at overturning it in the Supreme Court, and for the same reason, it is unlikely to prod Congress into enacting legislation. Reclassifying broadband under Title II — a path advocated by some public interest groups — might provide a more sound legal basis for moving forward, but the politics of that move are awful. The ISPs would fight tooth and nail to avoid reclassification, and the public interest groups are unlikely to be happy unless reclassification is accompanied by significant regulation. In the end, that move makes nobody happy. I think the best path forward is to try to articulate different grounds for exercising ancillary jurisdiction, a path the court left open, and then taking your chances in court. I give that path a 50-50 shot at success.”


7 Sickening Questions About Obamacare

Fox News

A new CBS News poll finds that “nearly two in three Americans want Republicans in Congress to continue to challenge parts of the health care reform bill.” At this point, there will only be minor technical changes in the bill even with the new House vote required for final passage. But the battle over public opinion goes on. Here are seven sickening questions about Obamacare that all Americans must consider:

1. What big government entitlement program has ever:

• Reduced the deficit?
• Only cost what it says it will and lowered the costs of goods and services?
• Improved quality?
• Enhanced efficiency?
• Decreased delays?
• Fostered more choice and competition?
• Featured competent bureaucracy?
• Operated with honest accounting?
• Avoided fraud, abuse, waste, maddening red tape, and higher taxes?

Why should we trust that Obamacare will do all that? Obamacare’s deceptive budget cooking was described in one instance by Senate Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) as “a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that Bernie Madoff would have been proud of.”

2. Why does Obamacare exempt some in Congress and the White House from having to buy the same health care plans that the law forces other Americans to purchase: President Obama, Vice President Biden, Cabinet members, top White House staff, congressional committee staff and leadership staff, such as those who work for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)?

Republican Senators Chuck Grassley (Iowa) and Tom Coburn (Oklahoma) tried to close this loophole, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) wouldn’t even let it come up for a vote. As Grassley says, “It’s only fair and logical that top administration officials, who fought so hard for passage of this overhaul of America’s health care system, experience it themselves. If it’s as good as promised, they’ll know it first-hand. If there are problems, they’ll be able to really understand them, as they should.”

3. How will we deal with a doctor shortage caused by Obamacare, particularly when doctors are being asked to treat 32 million more Americans now insured by the new law?

The Medicus Firm a medical recruitment company, found in a survey that 46 percent of physicians said they’d quit or retire if Obamacare became law. According to the survey, “even if a much smaller percentage such as ten, 15, or 20 percent are pushed out of practice over several years at a time when the field needs to expand by over 20 percent, this would be severely detrimental to the quality of the health care system.”

4. How will patients—particularly senior citizens—feel when their doctors and even hospitals tell them, “Sorry, but we’re only taking on non-Medicare patients who pay privately, in full”?

The New York Times (which championed Obamacare) wrote last year that “Some doctors—often internists but also gastroenterologists, gynecologists, psychiatrists and other specialists—are no longer accepting Medicare, either because they have opted out of the insurance system or they are not accepting new patients with Medicare coverage. The doctors’ reasons: reimbursement rates are too low and paperwork too much of a hassle.” Under ObamaCare, physicians’ Medicare fees are supposed to be cut 21 percent and hospital reimbursements for Medicare patients chopped by $1.3-billion. How long can doctors and hospitals sustain those losses before they’re forced to pull the plug on treating Medicare patients (although some exceptions may be made in dire emergencies)? Count on Congress to use budget tricks like temporary “fixes” to defer those cuts until at least after the November elections.

5. How can President Obama claim that insurance premiums will go down when the very same nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office he quotes, selectively, has said that Obamacare will cause the average family’s premiums to go up by as much as 13 percent by 2016?

6. Remember the “jobs saved or created” canard regarding Obama’s economic stimulus?

The president is repeating that fantasy by applying it to Obamacare. However, the nonpartisan Lewin Group estimates that as many as 600,000 people will lose their jobs due to the onerous new employer health care mandates in Obamacare.

7. Do you realize that Obamacare turns Medicare into what should really be called “Medi-pare”?

Obamacare slices $528-billion from Medicare, including $136-billion carved out of Medicare Advantage. As The Washington Examiner’s Susan Ferrechio has reported, “The Medicare Advantage cuts will force 4.8 million seniors off the popular plan by 2019. An additional $23 billion in cuts to Medicare will come from a panel charged with slashing Medicare spending.”

Those are just some of the gut-wrenching questions about Obamacare that cry out for answers. But as the expression goes, “It’s what you don’t know that really hurts you.” Obamacare is so full of dubious assumptions that in future years we may rename it Obama’s box, as in Pandora’s box.


‘Anti-Obama’ Billboards Go Viral

Fox News

If you have something to say – put it on a billboard. Atlanta commuters are noticing electronic billboards in metro Atlanta posting anti-Obama messages.   The idea turns what is normally a staple of commercial advertising into a platform for political opinions – a bumper-sticker slogan aimed at a wider audience.

The signs include: ‘Stop Obama’s Socialism.”

“If You’re Not Outraged, You’re Not Paying Attention.”

“Now It’s Personal! America’s Coming for You Congress! Vote Liberals Out in 2010.”

“Stop the Lies.”

The billboard sponsors consists of about 12 local businessmen. They’ve created a Web site:, where you can find four billboards messages to donate to.

Spokesperson Tommy Newberry says there has seen such an influx of interest, sponsors are creating 50 billboard designs for donators to pick from. He also says it won’t take long before the billboards start popping up around the nation.

“We are now very well funded. We are getting about a donation a minute,” Newberry said.

Donations range from a few dollars to $500 dollars. Newberry also has had about a dozen requests for an entire billboard. An electronic billboards advertisement can cost up to $3,500 a month.

Newberry says the group’s ultimate goal is to not only grab people’s attention but also educate and motivate them.

“There’s a lot of energy from people who want to participate and they don’t know exactly what they want to do. We can speak for them, on their behalf,” Newberry said.

If you remember, just months ago, a group of business owners in Minnesota sponsored a billboard with a picture of former President Bush and the question: “Miss Me Yet?


White House to media–‘Don’t report what you discover’


In light of numbing revelations over the last several days concerning fraudulent statements on Barack Obama’s resume, this piece of information curiously comes to light.  The White House has instructed the ‘mainstream media’ not to report what they may discover.

(AP Photo/Susan Walsh) WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

The White House directive was issued as part of a deal struck between the Office of the President and reporters of the mainstream media.

In exchange for being given unprecedented access to Barack Obama, reporters would promise not to report ‘certain matters’ they may discover while covering the President.

From Steve Clemons at The Washington Note:

What I have learned after discussions over the last several days with several journalists who either have regular access to the White House or are part of the White House press corps is that there is a growing sense that access is traded for positive stories — or perhaps worse, an agreement that things learned will not be reported in the near term.

What, exactly, is meant by ‘things learned?’  What information could a journalist uncover while having close access to the President that would be deemed so damaging, embarrassing, or even worse, that the White House is exhibiting a near-paranoia in making sure such information is not reported?

And more importantly, why would any true journalist who is worth his/her salt agree to such a scheme?

Clemons believes that part of the reason is that some reporters who cover the White House want to write books about Obama.

A ‘sell-out’ to the dreaded Capitalism on the part of liberals?  Say it ain’t so.

The agreement between the White House and reporters is mutually beneficial.  The White House gets what it wants.  Any information that it considers to be negative or damaging to Obama will not be reported.  The reporters also get what they want–unprecedented access to the President of the United States, which will help their careers and eventually earn them millions in book royalties.

In the meantime, what are the citizens not being told about Barack Obama?

At least some of that unreported information can be found here and here.

There is more, however.

Questions are swirling as to how Barack Obama was admitted to Harvard Law School and hired as a temporary instructor at the Chicago Law School.  The charge is that they were forced into it by someone or something outside the schools themselves.

These allegations involve the CIA.  And that raises even more troublesome questions concerning the background of Barack Obama.

Did the CIA use Barack Obama as an operative during the late 1970s and early 80s due to the fact that he knew the language of those in the middle of wars involving the USSR, as well as those engaged in terrorism against the United States, in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan?  Did he discover something during those years that he is now holding over the heads of certain persons in the U.S. government?

And was his admission to Harvard and his hiring as a temporary instructor at the Chicago Law School the pay-off for his having served the CIA overseas?  Was it the CIA that forced Obama upon Harvard and Chicago?

Or is there yet another ‘sinister force’ behind all of these mysterious scenarios?

H/t to Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs.


Congress Has Become an Institution of the Useless

Human Events

President John Adams once said, “I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is a disgrace, two are a law firm, and three or more become a Congress.” With the approval rating of the current congressional gaggle hovering somewhere in the single digits, one has to ask: Can’t we do better than this for $174,000 a year and the best benefits package in America?

It takes one’s breath away to see the blatant disregard so many of our senators and representatives have for the very Constitution they have sworn to defend. Take, for example, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, who made the following statement recently concerning the healthcare bill: “I love these members [of Congress]. They get up and say, ‘Read the bill!’ What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages long and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

This man is a lifelong lawyer and a 22-term Democrat. Do you think he cares about what is constitutional and what is not? (Oh, and by the way, congressman, this bill was not a thousand pages, it was twenty-four hundred pages.)

Last fall, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked by a reporter to cite the provisions in the Constitution granting Congress the authority to pass a healthcare bill, she answered with an incredulous, “Are you serious?” Are you, Madame Speaker?

Montana Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, one of the authors of this monstrosity, said that the legislation would address the “maldistribution of income in America.”

President Obama has mocked the concerns of congressional Republicans about many provisions in the bill. At the White House dog-and-pony show dressed up to look like a healthcare summit, the President told Sen. John McCain, “The campaign is over, John.”

You could have fooled me, Mr. President. You’ve been doing nothing else but campaigning since taking office.

When House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R.-Va.) confronted Obama at that same “summit” by reading from the massive piece of legislation (which looked like four New York City phone books piled on top of each other), the President responded: “You know, when we do props like this, and you stack it up, and you repeat ‘twenty-four hundred pages,’ etcetera, you know, the truth of the matter is that healthcare is very complicated. And we can try to pretend that it’s not, but it is… These are the kind of political things that we do that prevent us from having a conversation.”

As if he ever wanted to have one.

Now comes news that Illinois Democratic Rep. Phil Hare has revealed the constitutional ignorance of almost every Democrat and far too many Republicans. Hare was confronted by a concerned citizen with a video camera. The man asked what part of the Constitution gave him and the Congress the authority to pass these health care mandates, to which the congressman replied, “I don’t worry about the Constitution on this… What I care more about, I care more about people dying every day who don’t have healthcare.”

When pressed, Hare continued, “I believe it says we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” When another bystander pointed out that those words are to be found not in the Constitution but rather in the Declaration of Independence, Hare replied, “Doesn’t matter to me. Either one.”

Now that their Socialist healthcare bill has passed, these people have no compunction about admitting their true beliefs. With just a handful of exceptions, Congress has become an institution of useless men and women.



The Cypress Times
Ann Lindholm , American Soldiers Wife

Friends, I cannot pass this one up.  When I came across this one on FaceBook I couldn’t believe what I was reading.  Our brave men and women are sacrificing daily to protect us from the evils that lurk and plot terrorist acts against us in the nations which have pressured Obama to relax security in the airports.  Look at this press release from Israeli National News: Terror Prone U.S. Allies Pressure Obama to Lift Airport Security.  You have got to be kidding me.  I can only guess what will come next.  We may as well bake them cookies and roll out the red carpet.  Heck, let us hand them a cot, pillows, and blankets.  In fact, let us go the extra, extra mile and make them halal meals especially for them, provide them with a prayer rug, and make sure that no one offends them in any way while they make their way on over with bombs strapped beneath their garments.

Do I seriously think that every Muslim person is bad? Of course not.  Do I think that every Muslim is a radical and has intentions of carrying out holy Jihad on America?  Of course not. Do I think that every Muslim is a radical Islamist wishing to carry out Jihad?  No.  Do I think lifting the airport security on rogue nations who are infamous for terrorist acts, by which one of those nations, Yemen, came a terrorist on Christmas Day, is probably the dumbest idea Obama has had yet? Absolutely. Do I think that his caving in to other nations is a major sign of weakness?  You bet.  Do I think that the Intelligence Agency is probably correct in their predictions of terrorist attacks probable within in the next several months?  You better believe it.  Either this president is weaker than originally thought, is completely too inexperienced for the job, or is just plain clueless.

The original attacks were done by international flights.  The recent attempts were done by international flights.  Hey, so here’s a brilliant idea…let’s relax the security in the international airports in the countries where these attacks have been coming from.  Let’s just confirm if that is what is happening.  We should probably be sure, because we would hate to offend anybody.  It would be best to play it…well, I don’t know what you’d call it…but, we just really do not want to offend anyone.

Here is a quote from the Israeli National News:

“Other countries whose citizens no longer will automatically have to undergo stricter security measures are Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen and Cuba.”-Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu 4Apr.2010

Wow, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen!  I feel so safe.  How do you feel about this?  The Christmas Day attempt that was thwarted, was just a few months ago.  Intelligence Agents suggest that threats are still imminent over the next  six months.  I ‘m thinking if anything, the security needs be tighter.  No national day of prayer recognized but instead, Muslims invited for prayer on the Hill and he has admitted in his own book, Dreams of My Father, that he was a practicing Muslim while grew up.  See more about Islam on Capitol Hill.

You decide for  yourself, is there a series of unfortunate events unfolding?  Or, is America being offensive?


Thank You, NRA

Sometimes, I get some strange e-mails, while other times I get one that I think everyone should read. Unless you are a Liberal.      1 Dragon

You’re sound asleep when you hear

a thump outside your bedroom door.

Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear,

you hear muffled whispers.

At least two people have broken into your

house and are moving your way.

With your heart pumping, you reach down

beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.

You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch

toward the door and open it.

In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar.

When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike,

you raise the shotgun and fire.

The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.

One writhes and screams while the second

man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police,

you know you’re in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years

before, and the few that are privately owned

are so stringently regulated as to make them useless.

Yours was never registered.

Police arrive and inform you

that the second burglar has died.

They arrest you for First Degree Murder

and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

When you talk to your attorney, he tells

you not to worry: authorities will probably

plea the case down to manslaughter.

“What kind of sentence will I get?” you ask.

“Only ten-to-twelve years,”

he replies, as if that’s nothing.

“Behave yourself, and you’ll be out in seven.”

The next day, the shooting is the lead

story in the local newspaper.

Somehow, you’re portrayed as an eccentric

vigilante while the two men you shot

are represented as choirboys.

Their friends and relatives can’t find

an unkind word to say about them.

Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both “victims” have been arrested numerous times.

But the next day’s headline says it all:

“Lovable Rogue Son Didn’t Deserve to Die.”

The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters..

As the days wear on, the story takes wings.

The national media picks it up,

then the international media.

The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing

to sue you, and he’ll probably win.

The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you’ve been critical of local police for their lack

of effort in apprehending the suspects.

After the last break-in, you told your neighbor

that you would be prepared next time.

The District Attorney uses this to allege

that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial.

The charges haven’t been reduced,

as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.

When you take the stand, your anger at

the injustice of it all works against you..

Prosecutors paint a picture of you

as a mean, vengeful man.

It doesn’t take long for the jury to convict

you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second.

In April, 2000, he was convicted

and is now serving a life term..

How did it become a crime to defend one’s

own life in the once great British Empire ?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.

This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.

When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of “gun control”, demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, “We cannot have people take the law into their own hands.”

All of Martin’s neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.

Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn’t were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn’t comply.

Police later bragged that they’d taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns?

The guns had been registered and licensed.

Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?


“..It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds..”

–Samuel Adams

Obama Spares Us From Energy Independence; Ignorant MSM Cheers

Big Journalism

President Obama this week announced that his administration would ease-up on the long moratorium on offshore drilling for oil and natural gas.  Congress may not have made up its collective mind on the issue but some in the American media have made their positions clear.  Observe if you will this headline from the April 1 edition of the Miami Herald:

Obama offshore drilling plan spares South Florida

Here’s a parallel line from a story on the website of KEYT-TV in Santa Barbara, California:

It looks as if California’s coastline was spared, as President Obama announced plans for renewed efforts of offshore oil exploration.

Without getting into the relative merits of the president’s proposal, my question is, from what exactly are these two states being spared?  It’s not as if ExxonMobil is planning to plop oil derricks along the strip in South Beach or adjacent to the millionaire mansions of Santa Barbara.  But what about the pristine scenery in these areas?


The drilling would not be permitted any closer than 125 miles from any shoreline, which is well into international waters. In fact, nobody would ever see the drilling platforms.  A person of average height can only see about three miles into the horizon and even folks in the tallest luxury hotels have a vista that extends maybe 25 or 30 miles tops.  No, wrecking the view isn’t something that folks are being spared from.

Perhaps the media are pleased that Florida and California have been spared from offshore drilling oil spills.  Not likely.  American oil platforms haven’t spilled a drop of oil in more than 40 years.  So maybe these media pronouncements of sparing geographic locales from drilling is nothing more than a parochial NIMBY principle in play, a happy reminder that any new drilling will not be in my backyard.

That’s cool.  But one thing these area will most certainly be spared is new job creation.  Opening up American coastal waters for drilling could create more than 76,000 new jobs – pretty good ones too.  The salary for entry level grunts runs around the low $30k range which won’t make a guy rich but getting three weeks vacation for every two weeks on the rig is one helluva compensation plan.

Then there’s sparing all Americans – even the common folk residing in the flyover country between South Beach and Santa Barbara – from the prospect of energy independence.  Consider US oil production v. imports.  During the last week of March, domestic oil production totaled 5,489,000 barrels while imported oil for the same week amounted to 14,234,000 barrels – more than two-and-a-half times the amount extracted from American sources.


Where does this imported oil come from?  Among the top five nations providing oil to the U.S. – about 71% of all crude oil imports – are such hospitable locales as Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.  I take some comfort in knowing that Canada supplies the biggest chunk of our imported oil (even though they did beat us for the Olympic gold medal in hockey.  Hosers…) But it’s hard to understand how any serious person interested in energy independence can sleep well at night knowing that more than 1.5 million barrels of imported oil each day is controlled by Marxist lunatic Hugo Chavez down in Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, a diplomatic ally but also a well-known source of funding for anti-American terrorism.


Sparing Florida or California or anywhere else from offshore drilling will also spare us from lower energy costs.  The law of supply and demand tells us that more oil results in lower prices.  While opponents will argue that offshore drilling won’t do a thing to lower energy costs, there are plenty of folks – including some congressional Democrats – who seem to think otherwise.

Rather than news coverage heralding how one area or another will be “spared “ from offshore drilling, I’d rather see coverage on how offshore drilling can spare us all from the problems caused by surrendering American energy independence.


Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

New York Times

WASHINGTON — President Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons.

Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

President Obama on Monday discussing his new nuclear strategy, which would limit the conditions for using such weapons.


But the president said in an interview that he was carving out an exception for “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that have violated or renounced the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation.

Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.

Mr. Obama’s strategy is a sharp shift from those of his predecessors and seeks to revamp the nation’s nuclear posture for a new age in which rogue states and terrorist organizations are greater threats than traditional powers like Russia and China.

It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.

Those threats, Mr. Obama argued, could be deterred with “a series of graded options,” a combination of old and new conventional weapons. “I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure,” he said in the interview in the Oval Office.

White House officials said the new strategy would include the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reached a level that made the United States vulnerable to a devastating strike.

Mr. Obama’s new strategy is bound to be controversial, both among conservatives who have warned against diluting the United States’ most potent deterrent and among liberals who were hoping for a blanket statement that the country would never be the first to use nuclear weapons.

Mr. Obama argued for a slower course, saying, “We are going to want to make sure that we can continue to move towards less emphasis on nuclear weapons,” and, he added, to “make sure that our conventional weapons capability is an effective deterrent in all but the most extreme circumstances.”

The release of the new strategy, known as the Nuclear Posture Review, opens an intensive nine days of nuclear diplomacy geared toward reducing weapons. Mr. Obama plans to fly to Prague to sign a new arms-control agreement with Russia on Thursday and then next week will host 47 world leaders in Washington for a summit meeting on nuclear security.

The most immediate test of the new strategy is likely to be in dealing with Iran, which has defied the international community by developing a nuclear program that it insists is peaceful but that the United States and its allies say is a precursor to weapons. Asked about the escalating confrontation with Iran, Mr. Obama said he was now convinced that “the current course they’re on would provide them with nuclear weapons capabilities,” though he gave no timeline.

He dodged when asked whether he shared Israel’s view that a “nuclear capable” Iran was as dangerous as one that actually possessed weapons.

“I’m not going to parse that right now,” he said, sitting in his office as children played on the South Lawn of the White House at a daylong Easter egg roll. But he cited the example of North Korea, whose nuclear capabilities were unclear until it conducted a test in 2006, which it followed with a second shortly after Mr. Obama took office.

“I think it’s safe to say that there was a time when North Korea was said to be simply a nuclear-capable state until it kicked out the I.A.E.A. and become a self-professed nuclear state,” he said, referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency. “And so rather than splitting hairs on this, I think that the international community has a strong sense of what it means to pursue civilian nuclear energy for peaceful purposes versus a weaponizing capability.”

Mr. Obama said he wanted a new United Nations sanctions resolution against Iran “that has bite,” but he would not embrace the phrase “crippling sanctions” once used by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. And he acknowledged the limitations of United Nations action. “We’re not naïve that any single set of sanctions automatically is going to change Iranian behavior,” he said, adding “there’s no light switch in this process.”