Religious Freedom Under Attack Again

Once again it seems that religious freedom has come under attack.

An Arizona man has been arrested, sentenced to 60 days in jail, and fined $12,180 after a police raid earlier this week for holding a bible study in his home.
Yep, you read that correctly.  He regularly held bible studies in his OWN home and the city thought it would be a good use of the taxpayer's hard earned money to arrest this man.

 John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute believes the family is being discriminated against because of their faith. . . “The thing that I think is so shocking is that you might expect this in Iran or [some place] around the world … but happening in the United States, this is so shocking it’s beyond belief.”  READ MORE>>>>

Of course the city alleges that it was merely a zoning issue and had some safety concerns, "we have concerns about people being able to exit the facility properly in case there is a fire." Better hope the city of Phoenix doesn't hear that you're going to have your daughter's birthday party at your own house this weekend.

A little more information on the situation.

Poll: 66% Repub.; 75% Americans Support Fed Hands Off MMJ

A recent Mason-Dixon survey reveals that more than two thirds of Republicans polled believe that federal officials should mind their own business and respect state law when it comes to medical marijuana.  The survey also reveals that more than 75% of Americans favor the same. 

"What the results of this survey show is that there is absolutely no political justification for what President [Barack] Obama is doing with respect to medical marijuana laws," Steve Fox, director of government relations for The Marijuana Policy Project, told HuffPost on Tuesday afternoon. "Across the board ... there is extremely strong support for respecting state medical marijuana laws."
Medical cannabis is currently legal in 16 states and the District of Columbia but remains illegal under federal law, even in states that have passed laws allowing for its use in medical treatment.  Read More>>>>

Hopefully, our Congress-critters will see this survey and understand that its foreshadowing the trend of Americans increasingly favoring freedom over government nanny-statism.

MORE Big Sister Intimidation: $11k fine, possible arrest for defending your rights

The Florida Sun-Sentinel just reported that the TSA is refusing to back down on their unconstitutional infringment of 4th amendment rights of passengers that decide to fly the "friendly skies."

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is warning that any would-be commercial airline passenger who enters an airport checkpoint and then refuses to undergo the method of inspection designated by TSA will not be allowed to fly and also will not be permitted to simply leave the airport.

That person will have to remain on the premises to be questioned by the TSA and possibly by local law enforcement. Anyone refusing faces fines up to $11,000 and possible arrest.

Read More---

Reason.com: "Assasinations done wrong."

Like many of you I was outraged at news of the President ordering the murder of an American citizen.  Reason.com highlights some of the issues in this case.  Check it out.

Buckeye Firearms: Obama reveals anti-gun U.N. intent: Sends ex-Seattle mayor as Rep

I'm not one to read a whole lot into stuff like this, but considering that the ex-Seattle mayor, Greg Nickels, is a founding member of Mayor Bloomberg's anti-Gun group Mayors Against Illegal Guns I think it's noteworthy.

"Putting an extremist gun banner in any position to represent this country at the United Nations amounts to renting a billboard for advertising against the Second Amendment," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. "While he was Seattle's mayor, Greg Nickels supported every anti-gun scheme put forth by Washington CeaseFire, the Northwest's most active gun prohibition lobby.
"Nickels is a gun ban proponent," he continued, "so his appointment as an alternate to the UN is a clear signal of Barack Obama's intention to rubber stamp the UN's global gun ban agenda. We had to sue Nickels while he was still Seattle's mayor to overturn his illegal city parks gun ban. Now he gets to push his anti-gun philosophy on a world scale. It hardly seems a coincidence that Nickels has been appointed by the Obama administration at a time when the UN is considering treaties and initiatives that pose a serious threat to the Second Amendment."
Nickels was turned out of office in 2009, which was something of a feat in a liberal enclave like Seattle, Gottlieb recalled. His defeat in the primary demonstrated the degree of alienation voters felt from a politician who once epitomized the Seattle liberal establishment.
"By naming Greg Nickels as an alternate representative at the UN," Gottlieb stated, "President Obama has essentially told America's 85 million gun owners that their firearm civil rights are in jeopardy. Nickels cannot be counted on to defend the Second Amendment because he would like to see it erased from the Constitution." READ MORE>>>

Mayor Nickels wrote in a letter opposing HR 5005:

It is not reasonable or good public policy to prohibit the federal National Trace Center of the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Bureau from disclosing crime gun tracing information to law enforcement and prosecutors at any level of government. READ THE WHOLE LETTER (PDF)>>>

HR 5005 would've added much need BATFE reforms regarding firearms including specifying that firearms trace information shall not be "made available for use in any civil action or proceeding other than--an action or proceeding commenced by the Attorney General to enforce this chapter; or a review of such an action or proceeding."'

Read some more about Mayor Nickels' anti-gun stance:

Executive Order banning firearms on all City property and at all City EVENTS (original Seattle Times Link)
Signed onto this MAIG appeal (PDF)
Wants to prohibit anyone on a watchlist from owning a firearms, even though they haven't necessarily been convicted of any crimes, and repeal the Tihart amendment.
Against National Concealed Carry Reciprocity

House Overwhelmingly Supports Invasive DNA Database

The House of Representatives passed (by a 357 to 32 vote) a bill which would give funding to state governments to keep a database of all persons arrested (not convicted mind you) under the usual excuse... for your safety.

. . . "We should allow law enforcement to use all the technology available to them...to reduce expensive and unjust false convictions, bring closure to victims by solving cold cases, better identify criminals, and keep those who commit violent crime from walking the streets," said Rep. Harry Teague [(D-NM)]

. . . civil libertarians say DNA samples should be required only from people who have been convicted of crimes . . .  if there is probable cause to believe that someone is involved in a crime, a judge can sign a warrant allowing a blood sample or cheek swab to be forcibly extracted.

"It's wrong to treat someone as guilty before they're convicted," says Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute. "It inverts the concept of innocent until proven guilty."  READ MORE>>>

 This is troubling news.

Interestingly enough, only Republicans (a small minority of them at that) opposed this bill. Of the two main parties, only Republicans care about your freedom and your privacy.

To read the text of the bill (if you really hate yourself) and to see how your representative voted visit Govtrack's page for the bill.

Another Example of Why USA > Europe

I just saw this article on Yahoo News (German protesters stop neo-Nazi march in Dresden).

At least 10,000 Germans formed a human chain in Dresden on Saturday and stopped neo-Nazis staging a funeral march to remember victims of the Allied air raid that flattened the city 65 years ago.

About 5,000 neo-Nazis, clad in black, had gathered at Dresden's Neustadt station -- where Nazis once packed trains with Jews bound for the Auschwitz concentration camp -- hoping to stage Germany's biggest far-right march since 1945. (notice the emphasis on "far-right")

In the past few years, the February 13 anniversary of the destruction of Dresden, in which 25,000 people were killed, has become a focus for neo-Nazis who describe the blanket bombardment as a "bombing Holocaust."

...
"Stopping the Nazi march was a great success for the Nazi Free Alliance Dresden," said Alliance spokeswoman Lena Roth.
...
Senior politicians from Dresden and the state of Saxony and a representative of the Central Council of Jews laid wreaths at a cemetery where the victims of the bombardment are remembered. READ MORE>>>

First, let me go on the record to say that I am by no means a supporter of Nazism or anti-semitism, but according to this article this was nothing more than a funeral march to remember the thousands that died in the incendiary bombing of Dresden.

While I'm sure Dresden had some military significance, one cannot dispute that certainly thousands of would have civilians died in the firebombing. Granted, I haven't seen any pictures which seem to indicate that this was anything other than a march to remember the victims that died in Dresden. (fancy that, no pictures to prove the left wrong)

Which brings us to one of the largest differences between Germany (or the rest of Europe) and the United States of America. Liberty.

Here in America most of us, I have to say that because there are some on the far-left (like in this story) that don't support free speech for groups that they don't like or for messages they don't agree with, will fight tooth and nail to support the Right To Free Speech even for groups which we disagree with or don't particularly like.

An interesting thing to note is that they supported the right for some groups to memorialize the dead, but apparently "neo-Nazi's" don't have that right.

Can You Teach a 1st World Nation 2nd World Tricks

From The Observer

The article tells a poignant story that sounds all too familiar.

..."Last year three of my friends were caught smoking a spliff in a park and were treated like traffickers," he said. "They went to court, which took six months. One went to jail alongside murderers. The others were sent to rehab, where they were treated for an addiction they didn't have, alongside serious heroin and crack users. It was pointless and destroyed their lives."....

It's a story that I have witnessed first hand, and but for the grace of God it would've been true for myself.

The court's ruling was based on a case involving several men caught with joints in their pockets. As a result, judges struck down an existing law stipulating a sentence of up to two years in jail for those caught with any amount of narcotics. "Each individual adult is responsible for making decisions freely about their desired lifestyle without state interference," the ruling said. "Private conduct is allowed unless it constitutes a real danger or causes damage to property or the rights of others."

Is the "war on drugs" ending? The Argentinian ruling does not stand alone. Across Latin America and Mexico, there is a wave of drug law reform which constitutes a stark rebuff to the United States as it prepares to mark the 40th anniversary of a conflict officially declared by President Richard Nixon and fronted by his wife, Pat, in 1969.

That "war" has incarcerated an average of a million US citizens a year, as every stratum of American society demonstrates its insatiable need to get high. And it has also engulfed not only America, but the Americas...

Albert Einstein once said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

We've seen this story before in the early 20th century when groups had deemed alcohol unsafe for public use. This illegalization allowed unsavory entrepreneurs to transform into highly powerful gangsters.

The same is true today. We've taken a marginally harmful, although not useless plant, and made it illegal thus giving those that would produce and sell it a large profit margin.

In my opinion, just let the people have their weed but set reasonable restrictions on it much like we have for alcohol. If you want to reduce the amount of use look at the deeper reasons behind it's use and not the use itself.

Rasmussen: 57% Say Send ALL of Congress Packing.

A new Rasmussen poll is out and has some interesting findings.

If Americans could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, 57% would throw out all the legislators and start over again. Just 25% would vote to keep the Congress.

Healthcare Emergency (now with analysis)

Alan Korwin's blog has made a special post for this health care bill. He posted some commentary and Peter "Fleckenstein's" analysis of this monstrosity.

There's much too much to post here on my blog. I recommend you go to his blog (blog.flecksoflife.com) and read the original post.

Pg 241: SEC. 1121. SUSTAINABLE GROWTH RATE REFORM Line 6-8 HC Bill – Doctors, doesn’t matter what specialty you have, you’ll all be paid the same.

Pg 429: SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION Lines 13-25 – The Government will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.

[NOTE: Read carefully, it doesn't have to be a doctor, it can be an undefined "physician assistant" appointed by an unelected federal bureaucrat. --Alan.]

Also check out the Liberty Counsel's compiled analysis of this bill. (http://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/attachments/healthcare_overview_obama_072909.pdf )

And LASTLY.... PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!

Call AND Visit your Senators and Congressmen while they're home for the August recess and let them know that you DO NOT support this monstrosity and if they do they'll be out of a job come next election cycle.

Italian Cruise Ship: 1 Pirates: 0

I guess Larry Pratt was right.



Italian Cruise Ship Fires on Pirates
ROME — An Italian cruise ship with 1,500 people on board fended off a pirate attack far off the coast of Somalia when its Israeli private security forces exchanged fire with the bandits and drove them away, the commander said Sunday. READ MORE>>

PA Gov Double-Speak

Our wonderfully naive governor is apparently an expert at Orwellian double-speak. He's been in the news as of late showing his 'support' of the Law Enforcement community by pushing to make their civilian firearms illegal.

In a clever bit of double-speak.

CNBC: Assault Weapons 'Nuts' for Ordinary Citizens: Governor

"Assault weapons are difficult to operate, they jam easily. If you want a gun to protect your home it’s the last thing you should have." . . .
"These weapons have one purpose," added Rendell. "...They’re to kill and to maim, and they shouldn’t be in the hands of anyone else but the police and the military."

Now I'm a bit confused, maybe our governor can explain how this makes sense. 'Assault weapons' are poor choices for home defense weapons, but they should be used by the police and military?

Gov. Rendell, I thought you said you supported the police!

Now you want them to use weapons that are difficult to operate and jam easily?

And you say that these weapon's only purpose is to kill and maim but the police and military should have them, so are you saying that our police aim to kill and maim people?

This guy makes me ashamed to be called Pennsylvanian... when's his term up?

MT Legislature: Fed Gun Regs Not Valid Here

In another story of state sovereignty the Montana legislature passed a bill in the state house & senate that would exempt Montana from Federal gun regulations.

Commentators mention that the bill has a very limited scope (only applies to guns manufactured in Montana and never leave MT, if I understand), but this is still a good move. It's nice to see the great people of MT understanding that a 1" difference in barrel length or a quieter gun doesn't make that gun anymore lethal.

From the bill (http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm):

Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:

(1) a firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;

(2) a firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;

(3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or

(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.

The KXNet (covering news in North Dakota, South Dakota, & parts of Montana) which publishes blog posts from Say Anything Blog has this to say:

Only guns made, sold and possessed in Montana, of course, which means the bill has a limited scope. But the intent here is to send a message to the federal government about overstepping their bounds. The Constitution may give Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce (I don’t think gun control is what the founders had in mind with that particular clause, but that’s a subject for another post), but it doesn’t give the federal government the power to regulate commerce - up to and including guns - that takes place entirely within a given state.

This is a bid for federalism. The same effort Governor Rick Perry in Texas has taken up. And this one is being pushed by a Democrat Governor. One Barry Schweitzer. READMORE>> Or View the Original Blog Post

This regulation would of course remove restrictions (at least in theory) from MT manufactured, sold, and possessed Short Barreled Rifles (SBR-A rifle with a barrel length less than 16 inches or overall length less than 26); Short Barreled Shotguns (SBS-a Shotgun with a barrel length less than 18 inches or overall length less than 26); Suppressors (silencers-"any portable device designed to muffle or disguise the report of a portable firearm"), but it exempts Machine Guns.

NYT: Ginsberg Supports Foreign Law Influence in US Courts

This should come as no surprise to those that know how far off base Justice Ginsberg is with the constitution and the American public.

In wide-ranging remarks here, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg defended the use of foreign law by American judges...

“I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law,” Justice Ginsburg said in her comments on Friday.

The court’s more conservative members — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — oppose the citation of foreign law in constitutional cases.

“If we’re relying on a decision from a German judge about what our Constitution means, no president accountable to the people appointed that judge and no Senate accountable to the people confirmed that judge,” Chief Justice Roberts said at his confirmation hearing. “And yet he’s playing a role in shaping the law that binds the people in this country.” READMORE>>>

This is just one of the reasons why the President you elect is of the utmost importance and a strong reason why every other country's fight for freedom is as important as our own.

If we have revolutionary Supreme Court Justices that believe that the courts in the U.K. (or Saudia Arabia for that matter) can set precedence here in America we should be very scared.

After all, the American public didn't elect the Judges in Great Britain or Germany or any other country, so why should the decisions made in that country be able to influence the laws in America?

Would you like to see the U.S. to go the way of Cuba; the U.K.; or "The People's" Republic of China?

I mean this in the most respectful way, but I hope when Ginsberg dies she gets replaced with an American that loves and values this country and the ideals which make it great and will only interpret laws based on the United States Constitution.

---

YouTube: Justice Ginsburg Argues Foreign Laws Should Have Influence On American Laws

Commentary on 20/20's "Guns in America"

First, I'd like to apologize in advance because I forgot to set the VCR to tape 20/20 so I could see it later.

You see, like many Americans I have a life outside of network television schedules. I was just at a very sobering Good Friday church service, stayed later to help set up our church meeting hall for our annual Easter Pancake breakfast (to benefit The Voice of the Martyrs), and subsequently hung out with some of my friends afterwards.

However, I've been getting caught up on the episode. I've watched all of the clips on their website, but I haven't yet found a complete version of the episode.

• The first segment: Can You Defend Yourself with a Gun?

Providing that I've seen the entire segment, this bit doesn't bring anything new to the table it just confirms what gun owners and concealed carry practitioners already know. The stress of a real encounter changes everything, and the best way to prepare is to TRAIN, TRAIN, TRAIN!

However, I'm not sure if the average non-gun owner would get the same out of the segment. Perhaps they would feel that since even 'experienced' gun 0wners didn't meet the standard and stop the attack, then why take the risk of allowing people to carry guns?

All in all, the segment wasn't very anti-gun. It was more pro-training. I'll give it a rating of 0. (-1 negative, +1 positive, +0 neutral).

• The next segment: When Older Kids Find Guns

This segment was perhaps one of the most shocking. It starts with a child going with a father to shoot automatic weapons. (Which they fail to mention are severely restricted.)

They segue into a story about a child that was similarly shooting an UZI (under the 'supervision'-I say 'supervision' because if the child was truly supervised he wouldn't have lost control of the weapon and shot himself-of a Law Enforcement Officer IIRC) and ends up shooting himself. Accidents due to neglect are very common. I suspect that if 20/20 exercised their investigative prowess and did an exposé on power tools and child accidents, they'd find many more stories about children being injured and killed due to a lack of supervision and proper instruction than they would for guns. -1 for that.

They also show a lot of old footage they shot 10 years ago when they placed 'deactivated' handguns into a toy box at a day care or something and showed kids picking up the weapons and playing with them, like well like kids often do. Moral of the story, don't store your guns in your child's toy box and teach them proper gun safety (i.e. the four rules).

In the next segment, they set up a garage filled with junk and post an ad looking for older teens/college age people to pack up the garage for extra cash. They've hidden two guns (both 'deactivated') in a drawer and video tape the results. The first two people come across the guns and after first being shocked decide to just dump the contents of the drawer (guns and all) in a moving box. Honestly, it was kinda funny. The narrator says, "Afterwards, they were embarrased that that gun could've gone off." -1 for perpetuating the myth that guns routinely 'go off' without pulling the trigger. The truth is that yes, guns can go off if dropped or mishandled (even without pulling the trigger), but this is such a rare occurance that the firearm must either be malfunctioning; extremely old; or very unlucky. Modern firearms (certainly the Glock and S&W revolver) that they show wouldn't go off if dropped or mishandled without something being mechanically wrong with them. (Revolver Drop Test-Dept. of Justice)

Next, they show another two people who find the guns. They even comment "you just put your prints all over it...", and proceed to wipe off their fingerprints. This only proves the point that too many of today's youth 'know' more about firearms from television and movies (after all, why would your 'prints' matter if the gun was never used in a crime?) than from truthful instruction and proper safety training. The very fact that these two are concerned about their prints implies that they expect that the gun was or will be used in a crime, another common myth. -1 but +1 since 20/20 isn't fully responsible for this myth being perpetrated.

All in all, 20/20 reveals that of the 20 or so groups that had come to 'clean' the garage only 3 had contacted the owners and not handled the firearms. This is a sad revelation about today's youth and specifically their opinions and understaning of firearms. However, I feel this is more due to the constant vilification of firearms and lack of actual understanding of them. Ask yourself this: When did you receive proper instruction on firearm safety?

If you're one of the few that did then you can guess it probably wasn't in the public school; you probably have a friend or family member that's a gun owner that taught you about proper gun safety; and you didn't learn it from television, the movies, and certainly not the news.

• The next segment: Damon Weaver's Plea to Obama

In the next segment, 20/20 talks with a Florida child (Damon Weaver) who lives in Pahokee and has first hand witnessed and experienced gang related violence. This is indeed a sad tale and a tale that is far too common in America. However, this story actually acts to further demonstrate that gun control is not the answer to stopping crime. Violent gangs, like the ones shown, often get guns via any number of illegal means, and are not stopped by the laws prohibiting them from aquiring; possessing; and using those guns to commit crimes. What manner of insanity makes one believe that further laws will stop crimes? +1 for showing the futility of gun control in preventing crime.

• The next segment: 10 Guns in One Hour

This is perhaps meant to be the most damning attack on gun-related freedoms and deals heavily with the so called 'gun show loophole'. The 'gun show loophole' that is often referred to are regulations (or in some cases a lack of them) that allow individuals to sell guns privately (most often long guns such as rifles and shotguns) without requiring either party to undergo a federal NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) like one is required to undergo if one purchases a firearm from a Federally Licensed Firearm Dealer (FFL). I've never had a problem with the 'gun show loophole' after all, that's how I got my first shotgun. My dad transfered it to me. I still have it today, and it's never been used in the commission of a crime.

On a side note, I will say that the NRA recieves a -1 for their lack of action in setting the record straight regarding the 'gun show loophole.' After all, they consider themselves America's strongest gun rights organization, but when given the chance to defend why it's wrong for our government to put an end to the private sale of firearms between law-abiding individuals they didn't even take the chance to state the facts.

One very revealing thing from this segment is this little quote: ATF Agent, "...There's nothing illegal about their transactions..."

While I've only ever sold one firearm privately, and transfered the firearm at a local gunshop (to be in compliance with Pennsylvania law since it was a pistol), I'd still recommend that anyone conducting a private sale without the aid of a FFL at least require both parties to fill out and sign a basic firearms bill of sale. You can create one on a word processor and print it at home for use on private sales, it might be good to add a line for a witness name/signature/birthdate though.

Just live by the rule that if the party you're selling to or buying from doesn't want to fill out and sign the form then you probably shouldn't be buying from or selling to the individual.

• The next segment: Shooting Under Fire

This last segment is nothing less than an attack on concealed carry. 20/20 shows more footage of their 'experiment' they did giving 'students' a minimal amount of training (basically showing them how to fire and possibly even unholster); a holster; a Glock equipped to fire simunition training ammunition; and some protective gear and then putting them in a realistic 'school shooting' situation to see how they'd react.

Their 'experiment' is very much like magically dropping a 16 year old child (that just received his driver's license) behind the wheel of an Indy car moving at 200+ mph during the Indy 500 and then acting shocked when the child crashes his 900 horse power behemoth injuring himself and others in the process.

The results of this segment aren't shocking at all. It should be no surprise that novices without training won't react well in live fire realistic high stress situations. Shooting at a hanging target is not the same as dealing with a simulated life or death defense situation.

Putting bullets in an X ring is not the same as moving, drawing, making judgement calls, and putting shots center mass on a bad guy that's also moving and shooting.

What angered me was the fact that they never even attempted to allow someone that held a license to carry concealed firearms attempt the test (let alone a police officer or tactical officer to compare/contrast the outcomes).

There are a few interesting things that you learn about this 'experiment:

• The (bad guy) shooter is a formally trained law enforcement firearms instructor (very well experienced).
• All of the 'experimenters' are untrained (in defensive shooting tactics).
• 20/20 also never attempted to show variations e.g. not formally trained bad guy, using a properly trained individual as a concealed carry 'experiment'
• The good guy had no choice with where to sit, and one wonders if the 'bad guy' actually knew the location of the good guy before entering the room.
  

In conclusion, take what you see on 20/20 (or any news program) with a large dose of salt. Yes, it's obvious that untrained individuals aren't adequately prepared for realistic defensive situations. However, one thing that wasn't mentioned in the 'experiment' was that even the apparent presence of opposition has the ability to stop the attack.

This is one of the main reasons why the training wasn't realistic. The offender was a firearms instructor that had full knowledge of the training exercise; he knew that he wouldn't be injured or killed and therefore had no issues with 'opposition'. Real people in real situations aren't devoid of the most basic human inclination--Self-preservation.

Would the Va. Tech shooter or the Columbine shooters have committed their atrocious murders if they felt there was real possiblity of meeting opposition? Who knows, but it's safe to say that it definitely would've changed their mindset perhaps even their mind before they decided to commit those crimes.

There's a very good reason why you don't see these shooting sprees at police stations, and it's not because people don't harbor ill feelings toward police officers.