Just The Facts Ma’am, Just The Facts.

Subject: Why Carry a Gun?

Why Carry a Gun? 

My old grandpa said to me ‘Son, there comes a time in every man’s life when he stops bustin’ knuckles and starts bustin’ caps, and
usually it’s when he becomes too old to take a whoopin.’

I don’t carry a gun to kill people.
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don’t carry a gun to scare people.
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid.
I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil.
I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government.
I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry.
I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don’t carry a gun because I love it.
I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

Police protection is an oxymoron.
Free citizens must protect themselves.
Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.
Personally, I carry a gun because I’m too young to die and too old to take a whoopin’…..author unknown (but obviously brilliant)

See Update on Switzerland!!

**********************************************

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—- ————- ————-

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—————————–

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
——————————

You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are ‘citizens’. Without them, we are ‘subjects’.

During WW II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti gun -control message to all of your friends. 

The purpose of fighting is to win. 
There is no possible victory in defense. 
The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. 
The final weapon is the brain.
All else is supplemental. 

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN! 
SWITZERLAND’S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT TO WHOM THEY ISSUE A RIFLE. 

This was brought to my attention

One other point is particularly important here. The description of gun distribution in Switzerland omits important information.

The Swiss government doesn’t hand out a gun to every household. It requires nearly every able-bodied young male adult to serve in the citizen militia, where they are issued a military rifle. The guns are supposed to be for military use only, not for personal defense.

Those men are supposed to show up for 18 weeks of training, followed by seven re-training sessions (each lasting three weeks) over the next 10 years.

If you want to keep your weapon after your years of service, it is refitted to scale back its firepower and you need to provide a reason for keeping it.

IT’S A NO BRAINER! 
DON’T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET. 

I’m a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment! 
If you are too, please forward.
    

~ Steve ~                   H/T  FOTM’s OWN  Ken L.

Gosnell Jury: “We’re Hung on 2 Counts”

I’m hoping the 2 counts they’re hung on are like maybe

“Jay walking”

Guilty on the other 248 charges 

After 10 days deliberating the case, jurors say they can’t reach a consensus on two 

By Vince Lattanzio

|  Monday, May 13, 2013  |  Updated 11:40 AM EDT

Defense attorney Jack McMahon delivers his closing argument in the capital murder trial of former abortion doctor Jack McMahon.

The jury deliberating in the capital murder trial against former Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell says they’re hung on two counts.

The jury of seven women and five men are weighing more than 250 charges against the Gosnell with the most serious being four counts of first-degree murder.

It is currently unclear on which charges the jury is deadlocked, but the group told the court it has reached unanimous decisions on all other counts.

Around 10:00 a.m. Monday, the jury passed a note to Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey P. Minehart explaining their situation. The admission came on the 10th day of deliberations.

By law, according to attorneys for both sides, Judge Minehart is required to re-instruct the jury to deliberate on the two charges a second time and attempt to reach a verdict.

Around 10:00 a.m. Monday, the jury passed a note to Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey P. Minehart explaining their situation. The admission came on the 10th day of deliberations.

By law, according to attorneys for both sides, Judge Minehart is required to re-instruct the jury to deliberate on the two charges a second time and attempt to reach a verdict.

udge Minehart brought the jury into the courtroom on the third-floor of the Philadelphia Criminal Justice Center around 11:15 a.m.

Over a five minute meeting, he reminded the jury they must be unanimous on all counts and asked the group to return to the jury room and discuss the charges further. The group was grim-faced as they were led from the court.

Judge Minehart called the jury sincere, considerate and serious. The judge also said he wanted to make sure the group was not confused over the charges.

The jury now has three options: return to court with a question, request to re-examine evidence to try and break the deadlock or re-iterate they’ll be unable to reach a consensus on the charges.

Gosnell faces four counts of first-degree murder for his alleged role in the deaths of four babies. Prosecutors allege Gosnell delivered the babies alive during abortion procedures and then snipped their spinal cords with scissors to end their life.

The 72-year-old is also charged with third-degree murder in the of former patient Karnamaya Mongar.

Mongar, 41, died after she was given a lethal dose of pain killers and anesthesia during a 2009 abortion procedure at Gosnell’s West Philadelphia clinic, the Women’s Medical Society.

The former doctor’s defense attorney has argued Gosnell would inject a drug into his patients’ uterus to stop the fetuses’ hearts before they were delivered.

The majority of the 268 charges levied against Gosnell are related to alleged Pennsylvania abortion-law violations. Prosecutors say Gosnell regularly performed late-term abortions on babies older than 24 weeks — the cutoff age in Pennsylvania.

Jurors are also deliberating a handful of crimes against Gosnell’s co-defendant Eileen O’Neill. Prosecutors say O’Neill deceived patients and insurance companies by pretending to be a licensed physician and billing for those services.

Her defense has said while O’Neill was not licensed, she did have a medical degree and would always have Gosnell sign off on her recommendations and prescriptions. O’Neill’s attorney also said there is no evidence of the 56-year-old charging for her services.

The trial, which began on March 18, stretched on for nearly two months before being handed off to the jury.

The alleged crimes came to light on February 10, 2010 after investigators from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Drug Enforcement Agency raided the inner-city clinic at 3801 Lancaster Avenue following a tip that a prescription pill mill was operating inside.

Agents were met, not with an illegal narcotics drug operation, but rather, unsanitary conditions. Investigators testified they found blood-stained rooms, filthy and old equipment and untrained staff. Aborted fetuses were stored in a basement freezer in plastic food containers and bags next to employee lunches. Severed feet from aborted babies were found preserved in jars around the clinic.

The conditions found inside the clinic led Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams to call the clinic a “house of horrors” in a 2011 grand jury report.

If convicted of first-degree murder, Gosnell faces the death penalty.

 http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Gosnell-Murder-Deliberations-Stretch-into-10th-Day-207178491.html

~Steve~

 

Liberal Logic 101

 

~Steve~                                            H/T   I_Man

Gallup: Only 4% of Americans Think Gun Control is an Important Problem

i’m thinking it’s the economy stupid. while washington wastes time with this, people worry about jobs.

——————————————————————————————-

By Michael James

(CNSNews.com) – Only 4 percent of Americans think guns and gun control are an important problem facing the country, according to Gallup, and far more Americans are concerned about the economy, unemployment and the federal debt.

In its poll from Apr. 4-7,  Gallup surveyed 1,005 adults by telephone and asked, “What do you think is the most important problem facing the country today?”

Respondents answered in the following order:

Economy in general                                      24%

Unemployment/Jobs                                     18%

Dissatisfaction with Government                16%

Federal budget deficit/Federal debt             11%

Healthcare                                                     6%

Ethical/Moral/Family decline                            5%

Immigration/Illegal aliens                                4%

Education                                                       4%

Guns/Gun control                                            4%

Situation with North Korea                              4%

Lack of Money                                                  3%

Welfare                                                            2%

Lack of respect for each other                         2%

Poverty/Hunger/Homelessness                        2%

Foreign aid/Focus overseas                              2%

Taxes                                                                 2%

 

Despite the Obama administration’s strong push for more gun control legislation, few Americans are concerned about the issue.

As Gallup reports, “Few Americans mention guns or immigration as the most important problems facing the nation today, despite the current attention lawmakers in Washington are giving to these issues. The economy still dominates as the top concern, followed by jobs and dissatisfaction with the general way in which Congress and the government work.”

These data “underscore the prominence of economic issues in Americans’ minds,” said Gallup.

~Steve~                              http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-only-4-americans-think-gun-control-important-problem

 

A Form Of Gun Confiscation Has Reportedly Begun In New York State — Here’s The Justification Being Used.

This is a follow up to a post I did the other day about gun’s and permit’s being taken in N.Y. because of certain medications people have taken. While there may be a correlation between a few mass shooter’s ( Adam Lanza) and Med’s, I don’t think that justifies pulling someones permit or weapons without other factors.

http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/new-york-police-confiscating-firearms-from-people-taking-anti-anxiety-medication/

 I’ve found More details and a list of med’s. I would venture to say that at one time or another many , many people have taken one or more drugs on this list.

Ever have trouble sleeping say 3-4 yrs ago and had your Doc write you a Prescription for something to sleep? Say Ambien, Lunesta

————————————-   ~    Steve  ~   —————————————–

Apr. 9, 2013 6:30pm Mike Opelka

Despite promises from the president and a host of other politicians who are pushing for more gun control that nobody is coming for your guns, the confiscation of guns and gun permits has apparently started in some form in New York State. One attorney representing several people who have been forced to surrender their guns spoke with TheBlaze and alerted us to some disturbing facts:
Gun owners are losing their 2nd Amendment rights without due process.

HIPAA Laws are likely being compromised and the 4th and 5th Amendments are being violated in some of these cases
How did confiscation start happening so quickly? Apparently the gun grabbing was triggered by something inside the NY SAFE Act — New York’s new gun law — that has a provision apparently mandating confiscation of weapons and permits if someone has been prescribed
psychotropic drugs.

Chapter 55.01 Definitions.
(6s) “Psychotropic medication” means a prescription drug, as defined in s. 450.01 (20),
that is used to treat or manage a psychiatric symptom or challenging behavior.
Some psychotropic medications fall into specific medication classes like antipsychotics
or antidepressants. In other cases, the medications may be primarily used for other
diseases but have been found effective in controlling behaviors thus making that specific
use a psychotropic medication.
Below is a list of psychotropic medications or medications with psychotropic uses. This
list is not intended to be all-inclusive, however it can act as a resource to alert you to
psychotropic medications where regulations like psychotropic monitoring, informed
consent or guardianship may impact. If you have any questions about the medication, its
intended use or adverse effects please contact the prescribing physician, pharmacist or
nurse.
Brand Name Generic Name Class
Abilify Aripiprazole Antipsychotic
Ambien Zolpidem Sleep Medications
Amytal Amobarbital Sleep Medications
Anafranil Clomipramine Antidepressants
Aricept Donepezil Other
Asendin Amoxapine Antidepressants
Atarax Hydroxyzine Antianxiety Short Acting
Ativan Lorazepam Antianxiety Short Acting
Ativan Lorazepam Sleep Medications
Benadryl Diphenhydramine Antianxiety Short Acting
Benadryl Diphenhydramine Sleep Medications
Buspar Buspirone Antianxiety Short Acting
Butisol Butabarbital Sleep Medications
Celexa Citalopram Antidepressants
Chloral Hydrate Chloral Hydrate Sleep Medications
Clozaril Clozapine Antipsychotics
Cognex Tacrine Other
Cylert Pemoline Other
Cymbalta Duloxetine Antidepressants
Dalmane Flurazepam Antianxiety Long Acting
Depakote Valproic Acid Other
Desyrel Trazadone Antidepressants
Doral Quazepam Antianxiety Long Acting
Doriden Glutethimide Sleep Medications
Effexor Venlafaxine Antidepressants

Elavil Amitriptyline Antidepressants
Exelon Rivastigmine Other
Gabitril Tiagabine Other
Geodon Ziprasidone Antipsychotics
Halcion Triazolam Sleep Medications
Haldol Haloperidol Antipsychotics
Inderal Propranolol Other
Invega Paliperidone Antipsychotic
Klonopin Clonazepam Antianxiety Long Acting
Lamictal Lamotrigine Other
Librium Chlordiazepoxide Antianxiety Long Acting
Lithium Lithium Other
Loxitane Loxapine Antipsychotics
Ludiomil Maprotiline Antidepressants
Lunesta Eszopiclone Sleep Medications
Luvox Fluvoxamine Antidepressants
Marplan Isocarboxazid Antidepressants
Mellaril Thioridazine Antipsychotics
Miltown Meprobamate Sleep Medications
Moban Molindone Antipsychotics
Namenda Memantine Other
Nardil Phenelzine Antidepressants
Navane Thiothixene Antipsychotics
Nembutal Pentobarbital Sleep Medications
Neurontin Gabapentin Other
Noludar Methprylon Sleep Medications
Norpramine Desipramine Antidepressants
Pamelor Nortriptyline Antidepressants
Parnate Tranycypromine Antidepressants
Paxil Paroxetine Antidepressants
Paxipam Halazepam Antianxiety Long Acting
Phenobarbital Phenobarbital Sleep Medications
Placidyl Ethchlorvynol Sleep Medications
Pristiq Desvenlafaxine Antidepressant
Prolixin Fluphenazine Antipsychotics
Prosom Estazolam Antianxiety Short Acting
Prosom Estazolam Sleep Medications
Prozac Fluoxetine Antidepressants
Razadyne Galantamine Other
Remeron Mirtazepine Antidepressants
Restoril Temazepam Sleep Medications
Risperdal Risperidone Antipsychotics
Ritalin Methylphenidate Other
Rozerem Ramelteon Sleep Medications
Serax Oxazepam Antianxiety Short acting
Serax Oxazepam Sleep Medications
Serentil Mesoridazine Antipsychotics
Seroquel Quetiapine Antipsychotics
Serzone Nefazodone Antidepressants
Sinequan Doxepin Antidepressants
Sonata Zaleplon Sleep Medications
Sparine Promazine Antipsychotics
Stelazine Trifluoperazine Antipsychotics
Surmontil Trimipramine Antidepressants
Taractin Chlorprothixene Antipsychotics
Tegretol Carbamazepine Other
Thorazine Chlorpromazine Antipsychotics
Tindal Acetophenazine Antipsychotics
Tofranil Imipramine Antidepressants
Tranxene Clorazepate Antianxiety Long Acting
Trilafon Perphenazine Antipsychotics
Tuinal Secobarbital Sleep Medications
Valium Diazepam Antianxiety Long Acting
Vesprin Triflupromazine Antipsychotics
Vistaril Hydroxyzine Antianxiety Short Acting
Vivactil Protriptyline Antidepressants
Wellbutrin Bupropion Antidepressants
Xanax Alprazolam Antianxiety Short Acting
Xanax Alprazolam Sleep Medications
Zoloft Sertraline Antidepressants
Zyprexa Olanzapine Antipsychotics
Updated thru 1/09

http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/rl_dsl/MedManagement/psychMeds.pdf

This is curious because in his January 9th address, Cuomo specifically addressed the issue of confiscation:

The Case:
On April 1st, a legal gun owner in upstate New York reportedly received an official notice from the state ordering him to surrender any and all weapons to his local police department. The note said that the person’s permit to own a gun in New York was being suspended as well. The gun owner contacted attorney Jim Tresmond (a specialist in gun laws in New York) and the two visited the local police precinct.
Mr. Tresmond reportedly went into the precinct and informed the officers that his client, waiting in the parking lot, was coming in to voluntarily surrender his weapons as requested. The local police were aware of the letter because they had already been contacted by the State Police. Apparently, if people do not respond to the initial mailing, local law enforcement is authorized to visit the gun owner at their home and demand the surrender of the firearms. In this case, the gun owner followed the request as written. The guns and permits were handed over and a receipt given to the client.
After the guns were turned over, a request for a local hearing was filed and the gun owner is expecting to have his Second Amendment rights restored. But there is more to this story.
In our conversation with lawyer Jim Tresmond, we learned that this client, who has never had a problem with the law — no criminal record and or violent incidents on record — did have a temporary, short term health issue that required medication. But how were his client’s private medical information accessed by the government? This appears to be a violation of HIPAA and Health Information Privacy policies at HHS.gov. If it is declared a violation, this becomes a civil rights issue.
Some claim that a broad interpretation of this statement from HIPAA might allow the government to have instant access to the medical records and gun ownership records of anyone who is prescribed psychotropic drugs.
“A major goal of the Privacy Rule is to assure that individuals’ health information is properly protected while allowing the flow of health information needed to provide and promote high quality health care and to protect the public’s health and well being”.

That short phrase, “protect the public’s health and well being” is probably going to be cited as the reason governments can require notification of any gun owner who is prescribed a class of drugs used to treat Depression and Anxiety known as SSRI ( Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors).
The Mental Health Law provision of the SAFE Act claims
The NY SAFE Act is designed to remove firearms from those who seek to do harm to themselves or others. This means keeping the minority of individuals with serious mental illness who may be dangerous away from access to firearms. This law should not dissuade any individual from seeking mental health services they need.

The law is clear on what it expects:
MHL 9.46 requires mental health professionals to report to their local director of community services (“DCS”) or his/her designees when, in their reasonable professional judgment, one of their patients is “likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others.”
The man who was asked/directed to turn over his guns reportedly did not exhibit any signs of violent or dangerous behavior. According to his attorney, the man’s doctor did not report any danger to the authorities. So, who did report it?

Also known as MHL 9.46, the law talks about who is supposed to report on mental health risks and which patients qualify:
The reporting requirement extends to “mental health professionals,” defined in the law as four professions – physicians (including psychiatrists), psychologists, registered nurses, or licensed clinical social workers.
In addition to what Mr. Tresmond called “the laughable diminution of our rights,” the lawyer speculated about additional unintended consequences of releasing this confidential patient information to law enforcement.
What if an employer learns that a worker had their firearms confiscated? Could that person’s employment be put at risk?
What if your neighbors saw police come to your home and leave with your guns? Could that compromise your safety?
Could this kind of confiscation also make people think twice about getting treatment for a temporary mental illness?

In an effort to learn how many permits and guns have been rescinded due to this medical exception, TheBlaze has made several attempts to contact the Erie County office over pistol permits where this one incident originated. We have yet to be connected with a real person who can answer these questions.
We have also reached out to the Albany office of the New York State Police, but no official response has been received.
Mr. Tresmond has also agreed to keep us posted on his client’s efforts to have his Second Amendment rights restored and get back his guns.
TheBlaze will continue to monitor this story and we are also interested in hearing from other New Yorkers who may have experienced this type of confiscation. Please send all emails to mopelka@TheBlaze.com.

Interview with Jim Tresmond the Atty below.

Tuesday, Buffalo radio talk show host Tom Bauerle spoke with Jim Tresmond on WBEN radio.
http://audio.wben.com/a/73319182/bauerle-with-jim-tresmond.htm

—————————————————————————————————-

So let me ask you, if this is the road the Gov tries to go down, just how long before we have our first, second , third,…. Ruby Ridge’s?

This could go real bad real Fast.

New York Police Confiscating Firearms from People Taking Anti-anxiety Medication

Yep folks inch by inch they are coming. Is anyone else besides me tired of playing by the rules? You know we’re the good guys and we don’t cheat.

Frankly I am so sick and friggen tired of it. They just trample EVERYTHING that is decent and right that is in this world. They lie, cheat , beat , and yes even kill for their agenda. How bout we start drawing a line in the sand and say you better not cross this or I’m gonna bop you UPSIDE the head. I’m sorry but

the marquis de queensbury rules simply don’t apply anymore.

I forget who said it But it went something like this.

“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”  

This story grabs me by my gut and makes me want to hurl. HIPPA, Dr. Patient ——privacy, civil rights. Where is the outrage.?—————–

Government increases “onerous activity” to confiscate legal firearms.

Infowars.com
April 9, 2013

The New York State Police are suspending the handgun permits of people in the state who are prescribed anti-anxiety medication, according to Jim Tresmond of the Tresmond Law Firm in Hamburg, New York. Tresmond Law specializes in firearm litigation.

“We are representing a client right now who is impacted by this onerous activity of the government,” Tresmond told WBEN, a news talk radio station in Buffalo, New York.

“We were flummoxed by this whole matter,” the attorney said. “The HIPPA act is supposed to prevent this kind of thing from happening. It’s a gross invasion of our privacy rights.”

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule establishes national standards to protect individuals’ medical records and other personal health information, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

Tresmond said the New York State Police are responsible for taking action against legal firearms owners. “Based on information the county received from the New York State Police, they’ve suspended the permits. The State Police instigates the proceedings.”

Section 9.46 of the NY SAFE Act of 2013 authorizes therapists, doctors, nurses and social workers to report patients they determine may engage in conduct that may result in harm to self or others. If a determination is made that the person in question poses a threat, the provision permits the government to confiscate firearms. The provision is a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment and the legal standard of probable cause.

Experts said many mental health providers will likely ignore the provision.

NY SAFE was passed by the New York State Legislature on January 15, 2013, and was signed into law by Governor Andrew Cuomo the same day.

This article was posted: Tuesday, April 9, 2013 at 4:52 pm

~Steve~                   H/T  INFOWARS

 

Why liberal journalists are scum and conservatives must be less gullible

It’s bad enough that left-wing journalists are Obama suck-ups and continue to refuse to report on his many questionable biographical documents, such as that fake birth certificate and his fraudulent use of a  Connecticut-issued Social Security number that belonged to a man, now dead, who was born in 1890.

But it’s downright professional misconduct when a journalist for a major publication such as The New Yorker writes a satirical faux piece of news, but does not identify it as satire.

That’s what a steaming pile of sh*t called Andy Borowitz did. Below is his article in its entirety (colored pink):

March 28, 2013

Bitter Scalia Leaves U.S.

Posted by Andy Borowitz

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Justice Antonin Scalia dropped a bombshell on the Supreme Court today, announcing his decision to resign from the Court “effective immediately” and leave the United States forever.

Calling this week “by far the worst week of my life,” Justice Scalia lashed out at his fellow-Justices and the nation, saying, “I don’t want to live in a sick, sick country that thinks the way this country apparently thinks.”

Justice Scalia said that he had considered fleeing to Canada, “but they not only have gay marriage but also national health care, which is almost as evil.”

He said the fact that nations around the world recognizing same-sex marriage are “falling like deviant dominoes” would not deter him from leaving the United States: “There are plenty of other countries that still feel the way I do. I’ll move to Iran if I have to.”

Throwing off his robe in a dramatic gesture, Justice Scalia reserved his harshest parting shot for his fellow-Justices, screaming, “Damn you! Damn each and every one of you to hell! You call yourself judges? That’s a good one. You’re nothing but animals!”

Breathing heavily after his tirade, he turned to Justice Clarence Thomas and said, “Except you, Clarence. Are you coming with me?”

Justice Thomas said nothing in reply.

Andy Borowitz

Two FOTM readers took the bait and e-mailed Borowitz’s article as legit news to FOTM.

But after 4 years of blogging, I’ve developed a nose for sniffing out suspicious “news.” Besides, I just know Justice Antonin Scalia would not throw a temper tantrum like some 4-year-old snot-nose brat.

Sure enough, at the bottom of Borowitz’s article is this:

Keywords: Supreme Court; humor

The article is satire, pretending to be real news. Leftwingers like Borowitz write this precisely to yank our chains — and we fell for it.

To be fair, regular readers of The New Yorker would know the 55-year-old Borowitz is a satirist. He is described by Wikipedia as “known for creating the satirical column ‘The Borowitz Report’, which has an audience in the millions and was acquired by The New Yorker. In a profile on CBS News Sunday Morning he was called ‘one of the funniest people in America.’”

But conservatives wouldn’t know that, because I doubt that The New Yorker is among their regular fare of reading material.

So this should be an object lesson to conservatives to be more careful, less naive and less gullible when we forward emails and disseminate false “news”. Doing so only feeds into the Left’s malicious stereotype of us as stupid uneducated rednecks.

~Eowyn

In Florida, number of CCW permits up, violent crimes down

Somewhere some Lib’s head is about to explode with these facts

Just ran across this lovely article and thought I would share. Now if some nincompoop would like to debate the fact that having people armed to defend themselves makes for a safer society, well just jam some of these facts down  their throats.                      ~Steve~

———————————————————————————————–

Florida Update: Concealed Carry Permits Up, Violent Crime Down.

Written by  Bob Adelmann

The recent report from ABC News that in Florida, where there are more concealed weapons permits than anywhere else in the country, violent crime has dropped to the lowest point in history, delighted Sean Caranna, executive director of Florida Carry, Inc. “We’re happy to have facts and statistics put into these debates, because every time they do, we win,” he said.

Firearm-related violent crimes in Florida have dropped by one-third in just four years, 2007 to 2011, while concealed carry permits jumped by 90 percent in that period. Further, violent crime of any kind dropped almost as much, 26 percent.

There were naysayers, but their voices are becoming muted as more and more states have adopted “shall-issue” carry laws and have seen their own crime rates drop as well. One of the naysayers was Gary Kleck, a Florida State criminologist who calls himself “as liberal as they get.” He said the link between more permits and less crime might just be a coincidence. He said that nationally, crime has been falling steadily since 1991 and Florida’s numbers might just be part of that trend. He warned against drawing too hasty a conclusion that one statistic caused the other. “The real problem there in drawing conclusions is that you’re guessing why that decline or change in gun violence has occurred,” he stated.

In a backhanded support of Kleck’s warning, Arthur Hayhoe, the executive director of the Florida Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said “It’s difficult to attach gun control to the reduction of crime, and vice versa. We don’t know what works. We can’t prove that gun control works because we don’t have gun control laws.”

( Excuse me while I move this rock…  OK ,Mr. Hayhoe, hey that sounds like..ah never mind. You say we can’t prove it because we don’t have gun control laws. Well since you’ve been under a rock, believe it or not they have laws in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles. Guess what? As far as helping your argument, they suck. Just so you know. Scurry back under that rock now.    ~Steve)

Kleck has authored numerous books and articles over the last 20 years, but none garnered as much national attention as his 1994 National Self-Defense Survey which, based on a survey of 5,000 households, concluded that there were far more incidents where gun owners defended themselves against potentially violent crime than there were actual crimes involving the use of guns. This outraged liberals who thought Kleck would find something that would support their typically anti-gun posture. One such was Marvin Wolfgang, another liberal Florida criminologist who described himself as being “as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among all criminologists in this country.” He said,

I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns — ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people…. What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck … The reason I am troubled is that [he has] provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator … I do not like [his] conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault [his] methodology….

Such a report from Florida must encourage Professor John Lott, who in 2000 authored the groundbreaking book More Guns, Less Crime. Lott never intended to become the lightning rod for the anti-gun forces. He began the study initially because he saw that much of what passed for valid statistical analysis in the field was poorly done, and he saw an opportunity to correct and update it. What it did was change his life, and not necessarily for the better. In his recent update to the book, Lott wrote,

Ten years have passed since the second edition of this book. During that time, both the argument and the data have been hotly debated. This debate has often been unpleasant, vociferous, and even disingenuous. To say that my career has suffered as a result is something of an understatement.… And yet … within the scholarly community [my] research has withstood criticism and remains sound. Further, the additional ten years of data provide continued strong support for [my] arguments.…

When Florida passed the first “shall-issue” law requiring authorities to issue concealed weapons permits to qualified citizens upon request in 1987, critics warned that the Sunshine State would soon become the “Gunshine” State, with predictions of differences being settled by gun fights in the streets, and crime soaring. The exact opposite happened. As Guncite.com noted, “homicide rates dropped faster than the national average [and] through 1997, only one permit holder out of over the 350,000 permits issued, was convicted of homicide.”

That was then. This is now. Lott provided an update on right-to-carry laws for the Maryland Law Review last October in which he noted that there are now more than 912,000 permit holders in Florida, many of whom have had their permits for years. Across the country, as some 40 other states have joined Florida in its decision to allow “shall-issue” permits to its citizens, the number of permit holders has reached nearly eight million, and is still climbing. And Lott is getting support for his once-controversial view by recent studies showing similar declines in violent crime. Wrote Lott:

There have been a total of 29 peer reviewed studies by economists and criminologists, 18 supporting the hypothesis that shall-issue laws reduce crime, 10 not finding any significant effect on crime … and [one] paper … finding that right-to-carry laws temporarily increase one type of violent crime: aggravated assault.

He noted that the predicted disasters following passage of such laws never happened. In fact, despite more and more states adopting them, not a single one of those laws has been repealed. As Lott noted,

One simple measure of how well these laws have worked is a political one: despite states adopting right-to-carry laws as long ago as the 1920s, there has never even been a legislative hearing held to rescind these laws.

In that paper, Lott took delight in debunking so-called studies by anti-gun groups that have distorted the data to prove a different, and less favorable, conclusion:

A June 2010 analysis of the gun control groups’ claims examined those groups’ claims for Florida: the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center portray Florida as Ground Zero for problems with concealed handgun permit holders.

They boldly assert that seventeen Florida permit holders have “killed” people with their guns over the past three years [from May 2007 to May 2010] and that this one state by itself accounts for seventeen of the ninety-six “killer” permit holders nationwide.

( Liar Liar Big Fat Stupid Pants on Fire…. I’m such a child.  LOL)

Yet even though a newspaper reported on the shooting, seven cases were such clear-cut cases of self-defense that no one was even charged with a crime, three cases involved suicide, and two of the other cases, including one involving a police officer, actually didn’t involve permit holders. [Emphases added.]

That means that, following Lott’s rigorous refutation of those inflated statistics, just five out of more than half a million permit holders were involved in a criminal case in that three-year period.

That latest information from Florida just confirms what Lott had discovered years ago: Carrying reduces crime. Wrote Lott: “Armageddon never happened … in state after state when right-to-carry laws have been adopted, the entire debate quickly becomes a non-issue within a year.”

The time is almost here when carrying a concealed firearm is so commonplace that it won’t even be worth commenting on. Florida and Professor John Lott have led the way.

A graduate of Cornell University and a former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American and blogs frequently at www.LightFromTheRight.com, primarily on economics and politics. He can be reached atbadelmann@thenewamerican.com.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/14859-florida-update-concealed-carry-permits-up-violent-crime-down

Police tear-gas and beat peaceful marchers supporting traditional marriage

The much-prophesied time of the persecution of Christians is here.

As Americans await the Supreme Court’s decision on the constitutionality of the Defense of (Traditional) Marriage Act (DOMA) — and by implication, the constitutionality of same-sex marriage — it is sobering to know that 2½ months ago, 1.4 million Christians peacefully marched in support of traditional marriage in Paris and were met with tear gas and batons.

“Manif pour tous (March For All),” Paris, France, January 13, 2013.

The elderly and young were among the marchers.

Angela Lu reports for WorldMag, March 26, 2013, that as the 1.4 million “Manif pour tous (March for all)” protesters approached the Champs-Elysees avenue and toward the presidential palace, in opposition to a draft bill legalizing same-sex marriage and gay adoption, French police tear gassed and beat the protesters with batons. The crowd included children, elderly people, and priests, many bused in from French provinces that continue to hold onto their Christian roots.

French police use pepper spray against participants in a pro-traditional marriage rally in Paris. Photo: Michel Spingler/AP

One LifeSiteNews correspondent, Jeanne Smits, who witnessed the protest said a 14-year-old boy needed respiratory assistance after the tear gas attack. The leader of the mainstream Christian Democratic Party also fell victim to the choking gas. Police allegedly threw a 17-year-old protestor down the stairs at the entrance of a subway station after gassing him.

While polls last August showed that same-sex marriage had two-thirds support among the French, the number is now down to a narrow majority. The opposition comes from the Catholic church in France, other religious leaders, including Jews and Muslims, and people in traditional small towns.

Meanwhile, in the United States, on March 26, 2013 (last Tuesday), more than 10,000 pro-marriage citizens from across the country and from every walk of life rallied and marched peacefully to the Supreme Court with two simple messages: “Respect Our Votes!” and “Kids Deserve a Mom and a Dad!”

But did you see or hear about this in the MSM?

ConservativeActionAlerts urges us to do the following:

1. BIGGEST NEED: Pray, pray, pray, for the Supreme Court, especially all 5 conservative Justices, to apply the existing law and uphold both the DOMA and Prop 8 bans.

2. Send an email to George Will (georgewill@washpost.com) saying “You are no longer conservative, but an enemy of Jesus Christ’s definition of marriage in Matthew 19:4-6.” This week George Will (who claims to speak for conservatives?) argued the Supreme Court should homose xualize marriage by striking down DOMA.

3. Sign our free petition to Congress here to defend traditional marriage as Jesus defined it, valid only between one man and one woman. Social share this petition on FB and Tw.

4. Call your two Senators at 202-225-3121 to say “oppose and filibuster S. 598″ the bill proposed by Diane Feinstein (D-CA) that would repeal DOMA.

~Eowyn

Will Chief Justice John Roberts be blackmailed (again) to rule in favor of same-sex marriage?

Today is the second day of the Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) deliberations on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act and, by implication, of same-sex marriage.

I woke up to a network TV reporter intoning that SCOTUS’s decision will hang on two justices: Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts.

God help us.

Recall that Chief Justice John Roberts was the critical vote that accounted for SCOTUS’s ruling in favor of Obamacare last June, by upholding the most controversial part of the “health care” law — individual mandate. SCOTUS’s “reasoning” was that the Individual Mandate is a tax, and it is within Congress’ power to tax (and spend).

Roberts’ vote on the side of the leftist justices came as a rude surprise to Conservatives. By all accounts, Obamacare was set to be defeated. Five of the conservative justices had even prepared a majority opinion against Obamacare, until one of them — John Roberts — at the 11th hour,  changed his mind, and switched his vote. The formerly majority opinion had to be quickly re-written as a minority dissent.

Roberts’ 11th-hour abrupt switch confounded everyone. Why would an alleged “strict constructionist” who ought to favor limiting governmental power in favor of individual choice, turn into the fifth and deciding vote for Obamacare, which is already changing the United States as we’ve known it. And at the last minute?

L to r: John, Jack, Jane, Josie Roberts, Oct. 3, 2005. Do those kids look Latin American to you?

A HuffPo article in 2012 claimed that “a source close to the Roberts family, who requested anonymity in order to discuss judicial deliberations, told The Huffington Post that the justice’s wife, Jane, exercises a ‘heavy influence’ over her husband.” Jane Sullivan Roberts is described by Lisa McElroy, author of the biography John Roberts: Chief Justice, as “a very intelligent and high-powered lawyer in her own right.”

Below is an account of what could have led John Roberts to switch betray. (Note: The essay is quite long and should be relegated to the realm of unconfirmed rumors.) Briefly, the contention is that Roberts was blackmailed to switch his vote because he and his wife had illegally adopted two infants from Ireland. The Roberts children are now 12 to 13 years old.

According to a 2009 article in Irish America, John and Jane Roberts are part-owners of a little cottage in Knocklong County Limerick, Ireland, not far from Jane’s mother’s home place in Charleville on the Limerick/Cork border. John Roberts is also of Irish stock, as well as Welsh and Czech.

Since both John and Jane Roberts are practicing Catholics, and the Catholic Church is most decidedly against same-sex marriage (notwithstanding the heretical stance of “liberal” nuns and priests), if Roberts casts his lot in favor of same-sex marriage, it will lend credence to the blackmail rumor.

The following (long) article was first posted on LibertyCaucus.net, and then republished by other sites. (Warning: If you go to the LibertyCaucus.net link, you’ll get a red “Dangerous Site” message from McAfee.)

~Eowyn

Roberts swearing in the POS a second time in 2009

http://www.libertycaucus.net/forum/index.php?topic=113.0

How Roberts Was Blackmailed To Support ObamaCare

Many of us have questioned what caused Roberts  to switch his vote on ObamaCare at the last minute, as reported by CBS, and doing so,  so late that the Conservative Justices were forced to rewrite their majority opinion to be minority dissent. These facts may answer that question.

In 2000 Justice Roberts and his wife Jane adopted two children. Initially it was apparent that the adoptions were “from a Latin American country”, but over time it has become apparent that the adopted children were not Latin American, but were Irish.  Why this matters will become evident.

In 2005 the NY Times began investigating Roberts life as a matter of his nomination to the Supreme Court by George Bush.  The Times was shortly accused of trying to unseal the adoption papers and intending to violate  the anonymity of the adoption process… however there is more to the story.

Drudge did an article in 2005
http://patterico.com/2005/08/04/drudge-says-new-york-times-is-investigating-robertss-adoption-records/

The NEW YORK TIMES is looking into the adoption records of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.The TIMES has investigative reporter Glen Justice hot on the case to investigate the status of adoption records of Judge Roberts’ two young children, Josie age 5 and Jack age 4, a top source reveals.Judge Roberts and his wife Jane adopted the children when they each were infants.

Both children were adopted from Latin America.

A TIMES insider claims the look into the adoption papers are part of the paper’s “standard background check.”

Bill Borders, NYT senior editor, explains: “Our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions, as they did about many other aspects of his background. They did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue.”

Were the Children Adopted from Ireland?

This is not clear … — the Associated Press reports that they were “adopted from Latin America.” This seems a bit puzzling, in light of the Time magazine report indicating that the children were born in Ireland. Also, their blonde hair and fair skin do not seem conventionally Latin American.¹

TIME had a “web exclusive” on the Roberts’s (7/24/05) and quoted a family friend as stating the kids were “born in Ireland 4 1/2 months apart.”

How were the Children Adopted?

According to The New York Times, based on information from Mrs. Roberts’s sister, Mary Torre, the children were adopted through a private adoption.

As explained by Families for Private Adoption, “[p]rivate (or independent) adoption is a legal method of building a family through adoption without using an adoption agency for placement. In private adoption, the birth parents relinquish their parental rights directly to the adoptive parents, instead of to an agency.”²

But was Robert’s adoption utilizing “a legal method”?

Apparently the process of adopting Jack involved some stress for John Roberts. According to Dan Klaidman of Newsweek, during the contested 2000 election, Roberts “spent a few days in Florida advising lawyers [for George W. Bush] on their legal strategy,” but “he did not play a central role,” because ” at the time, Roberts was preoccupied with the adoption of his son.”

It is now quite evident that the two Children were from Ireland.  Even wikipedia references these adoptions at the time of Roberts’ confirmation, and indicates that the children were of Irish birth.

However Irish law 1) prohibits the adoption of Children to non-residents, and 2) also does not permit private adoptions, but rather has all adoptions go through a public agency.

This would explain the children’s origin from a “Latin American country”, so as to circumvent Irish law.

Evidently Roberts arranged for this adoption through some sort of trafficking agency, that got the children out of Ireland and into that Latin American country, from which they were adopted, thereby circumventing two Irish laws — entirely illegal, but perhaps quasi-legitimized by the birth mothers (two) transporting the children out of Ireland.

Undoubtedly Roberts and his wife spent a great deal of money for this illegal process, circumventing Irish laws and arranging for the transit of two Irish children from separate birth-mothers to a foreign nation.  Come 2012, those two children have been with the Roberts’ for roughly 10 years, since they were adopted as “infants”.

Some might feel an impulse dismiss this information, mistakenly believing Roberts and his wife were doing a good thing for a children needing a home.

That would be an inaccurate belief.  As recognized, such an inter-country adoption would only come about at great cost, and those who utilize this method are creating a for-profit black market in adoptive children, trafficking across international borders, and doing so from mothers who have not yet given up  their children except for that profit.  Such actions are creating a very unsavory profit-for-children human trafficking market that even necessitates immediate contact with new birth mothers in dire circumstances to offer financial gain. The entire arrangement is thoroughly predatory, turning children into only financial commodity,  and even providing motivation for their birth mothers to give them up! That’s an important ethical recognition.

Roberts is not deserving of any sort of respect here, and is only the latest example of people in position believing themselves above the law, beyond scrutiny and exempt from repercussion.

It all now makes sense.

The circumstances of these two adoptions explain not only why this would be overlooked by an overall sympathetic media, but also why a sitting Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court would not want this information to become public fodder well into his tenure.  Its release and public discussion would discredit Roberts as an impartial judge of the law, and undoubtedly  lead to his impeachment.

This also explains why Roberts would have a means to be blackmailed, and why that leverage would still exist even after the institution of ObamaCare.

… And it has led to flipping the swing-vote on ObamaCare, which fundamentally changed the relationship between citizen and government, making us de facto property of the state, with our relative worth in care and maintenance able to be determined by the government.  Essentially it was a coup without firing a shot, much less needing even an Amendment to the Constitution.

And it is consistent with Obama’s Chicago-style politics, that has previously involved opening other sealed <divorce> records in order to win election.