Skip to main content
Liberty Watch Home Page
Swap Shop
Recent Shows
Climate Change
Classic Older Archive
2020 Election
Bad PR
Purpose of Government


"What the American people have seen is this
 incredible disparity in which those people who
 had cars and money got out and those people
 who were impoverished drowned."
 -- Senator Ted Kennedy, on Hurricane Katrina
 -- Mary Jo Kopechne

Contact Liberty Watch:

Listen to Liberty Watch recent shows:

Listen to the best of Liberty Watch:  

Find Frequently asked questions:

Fight internet scams:

Book a guest on Liberty Watch:

Laugh at publicists who can't be bothered to read the directions above:


By Charles Crehore
Inmate, Federal "Correctional" Institution, Tucson

I see in the news that Scotland had granted a "compassionate release" to, Abdul Baset
al-Megrahi, the guy who was serving a life sentence for the bombing of Pam Am Flight
103, the Lockerbie incident. Al-Megrahi got to go home to a hero's welcome in Libya
because he is supposedly dying of prostate cancer and only has a few months to live
(which I am sure is a few months too long to those who think he is guilty).

But, this got me to thinking. Here's a guy who stands convicted of an incredibly violent
crime in which hundreds of people died unbelievably violent deaths. However, in the
name of compassion, Scotland releases al-Magrahi so he can "die at home with his

Must be nice. I personally know, or know of, a lot of guys in the federal system who are
serving life without the possibility of parole sentences for marijuana convictions in which
there was absolutely no violence and no one died; let alone 270 people. Do you know
what their chances of getting a "compassionate release" so they could die at home with
their families would be if they were diagnosed with a terminal illness? Do you have any

I do: Nada. Zip. Zero. No effing chance in hell. None. They would die in prison, with
nothing but a couple of people around who couldn't give a damn about them, and are
only hoping they don't die before shift change so they don't have to do the paperwork.
(In fact, here's a case in point: Michael Jude Fay, a Catholic priest who was serving
a three year sentence after pleading guilty to stealing more than $1 million from a
Darien, Connecticut parish, died from prostrate cancer August 22nd while incar-
cerated at the Butner Federal Correctional Complex in North Carolina).

So, here's the question: Who's more insane on crime? Scotland for letting al-Megrahi
go. Or the United States for not letting anyone go, no matter what.

Of course, I cannot answer this question because I am obviously biased. Just like
the families of those lost in the Pan Am flight cannot answer the question because
of their completely understandable bias.

But, if you were detached from it, if you could look at it objectively, who really is more
insane on crime here? Scotland or the United States? If you are going to err, which
side is it better to err on, compassion or retribution?

If you have an answer, you can send it to

Charles Crehore
Inmate, FCI Tucson
Serving 20 Years for "Marijuana Conspiracy"
Amount of Drugs Found = 0

Quote of the Week
'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our
liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever
allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first
by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that
will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all
property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent
their fathers conquered.'
Thomas Jefferson 1802


Letter to and from Mr. Connery, vis a vis the efforts of the Arizona Citizens Defense League.
Fascinating exchange with an anti-freedom mindset:

Subject: Re: gun legislation  Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:02:12 -0700
To: John Wentling < 
From: John Connery <>

> I'm an educator in the public schools and I don't want ANYONE carrying a
> weapon on campus, concealed or not, with or without a permit, unless
> it's a law enforcement officer.   Are you guys off your noodle?   Yea, I
> know, you'll say 'what about those mentally disturbed individuals like
> the one in VA who slaughtered those students on the college campus?'. 
> NRA propaganda.
> So, now you want to open it up to more people who may or may not be
> mentally disturbed (in my opinion, ANYONE who brings a firearm on school
> grounds is mentally deranged to begin with), to bring a weapon on
> campus?   Asserting our as you put it, "God given" right to practice our
> second amendment rights.  Sure, and you think God really approves of
> this?   Think again.  You are endangering the lives of thousands of
> people in this state by promoting this and other similar bills.
> So you work for and are in bed with the NRA?   If this bill passes and
> there is an incident on school grounds in this state, as a result of
> your stupid ideas, I and many others will hold you and your
> narrow-minded-excuse-for-an-organization personally responsible.  Don't
> you forget it!


From:  Charles Heller Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 12:39 AM
Subject: Fanmail From The Teaching Community


Hello Mr. Connery -


   Thank you for writing to us. It is always a great thing to get feedback, especially from those
who do not agree with us. I'd like to set the record straight on one issue - we do not work for
the NRA. They're only trying to get guns into employee parking lots and restaurants that serve
alcohol. Were doing the heavy lifting of getting them into schools, where they can save the


   You mention that the idea that Virginia Tech adult students could protect themselves from
a mass murderer, is "NRA propaganda." You don't seem to have included any supporting
documentation for that, but well and good. This brings up a question:
does the recent case at Yeshiva University on 6/3/08, where a student at the university shot
a terrorist who was attacking a library full of students with an automatic weapon, seem like
a "myth" to you?


   Please read the story at , and get back
to us as to whether or not you think that that event was a "myth," or "NRA propaganda." This
is not a rhetorical exercise, I'd really like your feedback.


   When you are done reading that article, could you please take a look at this one, and then tell me if it is "NRA propa-
ganda?" (That's where a high school vice-principal in Pearl, Mississippi, interrupted a mas-
sacre and held the gunman, Luke Woodham, at gunpoint for the police. I really would like
your opinion, even if it is in disagreement with ours.


    I too, am a teacher, and one of the things I have learned is that being a teacher requires
a lot of research. Would you kindly research the two articles above and get back to us on
whether or not they are real examples of people at schools providing an effective defense
of children?


   You said in your note to John Wentling that, "If this bill passes and there is an incident
on school grounds in this state, as a result of your stupid ideas, I and many others will hold
you and your narrow-minded-excuse-for-an-organization personally responsible."


   OK, fair enough. My question for you is this: if such an incident does occur, and a CCW
permitee does shoot the attacker before he murders any children, will you conversely, give
us the credit?


   One more thing. You mention that, "in my opinion, ANYONE who brings a firearm on
school grounds is mentally deranged to begin with."
I see, so are you saying that in the
schools that have ranges at them in cooperation with 4H groups, that the teachers who
bring the training rifles, are deranged? If so, can you provide any evidence that this is the


   Tonight in one of my classes, I had as a student one of the psych nurses who was present
at University Medical Center when one of her co-workers was murdered in front of her.
arizo na-1.1260248
That student is a competent marksman, and is certified by the state in
nursing. Are you suggesting that if it were legal for her to have had her defense tool with her,
that she could not have solved the problem to prevent her co-worker's loss of life?


   Mr. Connery, could you explain why it is that federal law recognizes the ability of someone
with a concealed weapons permit to enter a school while armed? (18 USC, Sect 922.) Why
is it, in your view, that said federal law gives the same exemption to gun possession in a
school by a CCW permitee, as to a police officer? Why would federal such a law be written
that way?


   If you would like to talk about this in public, I can schedule it on the radio and many more
people will get to hear your views. Please see , for the
radio programs I do on this topic. I'd be glad to have you on and let you have your say...


In Liberty,
Charles Heller
Secretary, AzCDL
Host, America Armed & Free
Independent on AM 1030 KVOI
Tucson, Az.
   Subject: Re: gun legislation
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 08:32:52 -0700
From: John Connery <>
To: John Wentling <>

John, thank you for your rebuttal, and you and others in your organization
are certainly entitled to your opinions, but I'm sticking by mine and
believe me, this is not just an emotional reaction.

If you in your NRA posture, can envision scenarios in which people defend
themselves on campuses, I and others like me (and believe me there are
thousands!) can certainly counter with other scenarios which would do far
more harm than good.  What kind of message are we sendingto kids?  
That it's OK to solve problems with so called "tools" that impart violence
and destruction?   We have enough problems with studentssneaking in
guns, knives, home-made bombs, and other destructive things to schools,
we do need adults sending them the message that it's OK to do so.

What people such as your selves in this organization in which you push your
beliefs, don't seem to understand, is these tough economic times,
we are trying to ATTRACT not REPEL businesses to Arizona to boost our
economy and support continued growth in the tourism industry.  If this bill
and others like it, such as the one that allows people to carry into bars
and restaurants take effect, it sends a message to the rest of the country
that (and I don't know how long you've been in AZ, but I've been here a long
time) we are still perpetuating the old "Wild West" mentality, shoot 'em up
and ask questions later, and they will simply pass us by, with good reason.

I intend to approach my superintendent about distributing a survey which
asks teachers and other personnel in our district (maybe even parents), and
students what they think about weapons being brought on campus.
I'll get back to you with the results in the fall.

On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Charles Heller



Hi Mr. Connery -


   I notice that you have responded to Mr. Wentling, and I am eagerly awaiting your
response to my previous note and this one, as I am the spokesman for AzCDL.
Mr. Wentling's responsibilities with AzCDL do not allow him the time to respond in
detail to the public and our members, so I do it for him.


    Again, I must stress, that we do not have an "NRA posture," nor is NRA affiliated
with us. Although many of the board of AzCDL  are indeed members of NRA, we
do not speak for NRA nor do they for us. We are an independent civil rights organiz-
ation. They are a gun group. Hope that clarifies that issue. 


    Certainly, you are entitled to your opinion, and we would even lobby the legislature
to fight to preserve that right for you. We welcome opposing opinions and will always
be respectful to them, ergo these civil, probative, substantive, and detailed responses
to you. You are not, however, entitled to your own facts. Those facts, are written into
Arizona Law.


    ARS 13-405, specifically authorizes the use of deadly force by the individual Arizona
citizen, against a deadly attack. What you advocate, keeping guns out of schools, is an
impairment not only of a constitutional right, but of the plain letter of the law that follows
from that constitution (that of Arizona, not just the U.S. Constitution. I'm referring here
to Article 2, Section 26 of Arizona's Constitution.) Please read both Article 2, Section
26 of the Arizona Constitution, ,and ARS
htm&Title=13&D ocType=ARS


   Furthermore, ARS 13-406, ocType=ARS , justifies the use of force in defense
of another:

The problem here, is that you are objecting to the means of defending the lives of
children. In doing so, you are drawing moral equivalence between the gang banger with
an illegal gun, and the CCW permitee or police officer, with a lawfully carried gun. Do you
see the fallacy in so doing? If not, let me lay it out for you...


   You ask "What kind of message are we sending to kids?   That it's OK to solve problems
with so called "tools" that impart violence and destruction?"


   No, the message you are sending to kids, by prohibiting good people from having the
tools of defense, is that, "if someone comes here to do you violence, we will guarantee
that the means to defend you will not be available." The message you send to children
by so doing, is that they are not worthy of being defended.


   That is part of the reason, I believe, under girding some of these events. Children who
have grown up under the message that they are not worthy of being defended, do not
value the lives of others! It is no surprise then, that some of them then do heinous things.


   Another component of the problem, is that many people conflate force, with violence.
A failure to delineate between the two is a moral deficiency. Force is the amount of work
or pressure, needed to cause a result. Violence, on the other hand, is an excessive
amount of force. Police officers are sometimes called upon to use force when they
detain a suspect. That is not violence. If they exceed the amount of force authorized
by law, that is violence.


   The shooting of a person, who is about to murder one or more children and teachers,
is not "violence." It is force, and it is also necessary force. The prohibition of guns
lawfully carried in schools, as provided for in federal law, (18 USC, Sect 922) is a
dereliction of the duty we have to our children to protect them.


    On the issue of attracting business to Arizona, one of the things that attracted me
here as a business owner and entrepreneur, was the ability to defend myself lawfully
without jumping through a bunch of government hoops. It is a selling point of this state
that the business owner is not encumbered by such useless regulatory nonsense as
gun registration, and the like. Availability of a concealed weapon permit is also a major
draw for business owners, especially those from restrictive jurisdictions such as the
People's Republic of California. It is frequently one of the first things obtained by
refugees from there.


    Furthermore, there is a good bit of tourism in Arizona, by people who come here, just
for the freedom to use guns. I personally lead tours of people here from England and
Japan who come to Arizona to shoot guns. It's a strong selling point. Along those lines,
do you think it discourages tourism in Israel that parents patrol schools with sub-machine


   The "Wild West," was not nearly as wild as portrayed in Hollywood. It was usually far
more peaceful, due to the fact that armed self defense was far less questioned them as
it is today. We could stand to have more self sufficiency, and less dependence. A great
way to teach responsibility to children, is through the responsible use of arms, as taught
in the Boy Scouts, and programs like 4H. Would that we had more of it, and on school

campuses. Not to worry though, when we are done with this legislative fight, that's on
the agenda.


   You mention that, "...I and others like me (and believe me there are thousands!) can
certainly counter with other scenarios which would do far more harm than good." While
there may be "thousands," of them, there are millions of gun owners in the United States
who understand that self defense is a basic human imperative. Hopefully the millions of

them can educate the thousands of you.


   So far, I have provided verified, documented instances of the use of deadly force in
defense of children and teachers in schools. I could provide dozens more, if you wish.
The common denominator in these instances is that each large massacre has occurred
inside a government imposed, disarmed victim zone. So far you have provided ZERO
evidence or support of your point of view, without so much as naming one of the
"thousands" who support it. We look forward to any documentation that victim
disarmament leads to safety.


   May I point out, that you can never achieve empowerment through weakness. The
message that sends to children is that "victory can be achieved through weakness and
compromise with evil." If you wish to teach your children that, you are free to do so, but
I advise you that they will not do well in life against people like my children, who have
been taught right from wrong.


   You may have all the surveys you wish about teachers' views of guns on campus.
You don't get to vote on peoples' rights. There was a time when we did, and it was
called Jim Crow. Please consider that in a era when we finally have a black President,
discrimination is no longer in vogue.


   We eagerly await your factual response.


Charles Heller
Secretary, AzCDL

Host, Liberty Watch Radio
Independent on KVOI Tucson


Talk about fallacial thinking!   Your opinion (and that's all it is) about sending a message to
kids that they are somehow not worthy of being defended I find totally off base and illogical. 
That's your perception of how children might perceive it.  Most of my job as an educator is
to teach children how to THINK, not just REACT to a given situation.  


Also, your comments about the "morality" of force versus violence does not hold water
either.  If bloodshed occurs on campus or in a bar as a result of gun-toting, self-righteous
folks exercising their right to bear and use arms if they don't happen to like a person or care
for a particular situation, it is both force and violence being brought to bear (dictionary
definition of violence - " intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force".

I have no more intention to respond to your additional emails for now.  I simply wanted you
to know that there are other individuals in this state who disagree with and will not necessarily
support your position of advocacy to promote fear and paranoia in public places.  There are
plenty of non-violent "tools" one can use to defend one's liberties, reason and logic being
one of them. 

Thank you for your time.



Mr. Connery -


    We are well aware that there are people who disagree with us, and do not believe that ours
is the only point of view. That said, as an organization, we are mutually disappointed by your
recent response. We were looking forward to salient points, educational examples, statistical
evidence, and objective perspectives from you, as an educator. We can learn from other
informed perspectives, as we hold no monopoly on truth.


   You say that the thinking, expressed in the letter copied below, is, "fallacial," but you did
not state WHY it might be so, nor give any evidence, facts, or supported testimony, as to
why it might be so. You do not say why it might be illogical. Your statement is, as is taught
in speech classes (or was, at Northern Illinois University) know as a "gratuitous statement."
Such a statement, may be equally gratuitously denied, but I am not going to do that. I will
provide logical support for my statement.


   Before I begin my logical support for my point, I notice that my dictionary does not show
the word, "fallacial," but I believe that you might have meant "fallacious," and will proceed
on that path. I would have thought that an educator might be more cautions with his use
of words, but maybe you are a math teacher...


   First, it is reasonable that you might find such a point of view fallacious, because it likely
offends your belief system. That is to be expected, and frankly one of the reasons I said it.
It was an attempt to get you to confront your own beliefs about right and wrong, which I
believe are flawed. I believe it is a flawed practice to assume that all uses of force are
morally equivalent.


   AS EVIDENCE, does a person who is committing an unprovoked attack upon the person
of another, have the same right to self defense, as the person being attacked? The common
law which descended upon us from our Mother Country did not hold so, and neither does
Arizona law. (See ARS 13-404, "Use of Force In Self Defense.") The attacker and the
defender, are NOT morally equivalent. One is in the right, and the other is in the wrong. It
was held so in the days the 10 Commandments were new, and it is held so in law and
morality today.


   If it is true that the attacker is in the wrong, both morally and legally, then it must also
be true that the defender is in the right, both morally and legally. It is a corollary to that truth
that a person who willfully fails to defend himself, or another innocent, if he is capable,
against an unwarranted attack, is guilty of a sin of omission. That is especially true in the
case of defending a child.


   You are advocating for the position of leaving children defenseless against violent
criminal predation. Are you certain, Mr. Connery, that you want to place yourself in that
moral position? Then again, if ALL positions are "morally equivalent," then I guess it does
not matter.... however your responsibility as a teacher, does not give you that choice. You
must, by both legal obligation and institutional practice, act in the best interest of the children
you teach, in the doctrine of,"in loco parentis." Anything less, employs a malfeasant
 "standard of practice."


   You are therefore charged with the responsibility, not only of teaching children, but of
protecting them. There are only two ways to do that in the face of violent attack, absent
picking them up and carrying them from the danger - either placing yourself physically
between an attacker and the victims, or engaging the attacker yourself with physical force.
If the attacker is armed with a deadly force instrument, in addition to doing poorly yourself,
you will not do well in protecting the children whom it is your duty to protect.


    Your argument, that the demonstrated morality of showing children that they are not worthy
of protection, is defeated by fact and evidence, and is therefore shown NOT to be "fallacial,"
as you say, or more correctly, fallacious.


    You claim that my comments about the morality of force versus violence, "does not hold
water either." Again, you do not state why my statements "do not hold water." You have no
support, no evidence, no facts, nor any examples as to why your point of view might be true.
You have now repeated the assertion that "If bloodshed occurs on campus or in a bar as a
result of gun-toting, self-righteous folks exercising their right to bear and use arms..."


    Mr. Connery, please check your facts, and show me where ANY law abiding, CCW permit
carrying person has engaged in a random act of violence. I can tell you that there are MANY
acts of violence committed by criminals and crazy people (oooh, I bet you don't like that
judgementalism.)  That is exactly why it is important to use proper force upon them. Let me
give you a working, non-theoretical example.


    A good example of that is the great man, Livi Librescu, one of the heroes of the Virginia Tech
massacre. Mr. Librescu was a visiting Israeli professor, teaching at Virginia Tech, When the
killer attempted to enter his classroom, Mr. Librescu blocked the door with a table, and held
it in place with his body. The killer then fired 4 shots through the door, each hitting Mr. Librescu.
He stayed there anyway, buying time for 22 of the 23 students to make it out a window. The
5th shot hit Mr. Librescu in the head, killing him.


   As you may know, almost all Israeli Citizens have military experience. Are you going to
assert that Mr. Librescu, rather than courageously trading his life for 22 others, would have
been incapable of drawing a concealed pistol and firing back through the door? Are you sug-

gesting that having the killer continue his rampage was a better result than having Mr.
Librescu terminate it on the spot? Are you suggesting that the morality of both outcomes
would have been equivalent? I believe that you are so asserting, and as such, your
assertion that my point "does not hold water," is defeated by example, demonstration of
evidence, and fact


   In my previous e-mail, I entreated you to educate yourself about the facts of other school
shootings that have been stopped by armed civilians. Have you done so? Would it not
behoove you, as an educator, to have an educated point of view? If you think that we are
wrong, could you please provide logical support and evidence? We would be informed
by an intelligent discourse as to why our point of view should not obtain in the legislature.
It would help us to refine our approach and correct any errors in it.  


   As director of communications of AzCDL, I have an obligation to read and respond to
the communication of members and other interested parties. Hopefully you will engage
in a fruitful dialog so as to bring clarity to your side of the argument, because as it sits,
there is none.


In Liberty,

Charles Heller
Secretary, AzCDL
Host, Watch Radio
Independent on KVOI Tucson


This is obviously satirical, but, I know many for whom this is very true.  I wonder where the replacements
are going to come from?  The letter leaves out the onerous additional burdens of excessive litigation and
government over regulation born by small business.  We are diminishing in number at an alarming rate. 

Subject: A Message From The Boss

To All My Valued Employees,  

There have been some  rumblings around the office about the future of this
company, and  more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has
changed  for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good
news  is this: The economy doesn't pose a threat to your job. What does  
threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in  this

However,  let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you  
decide what is in your best interests.

First, while  it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against  
employees, you have to understand that for every business owner  there
is a Back Story. This back story is often neglected and  overshadowed
by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside.
You've seen my big home at last yearʼs Christmas  party. I'm sure; all
these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some  idealized thoughts about
my life.

However, what you don't  see is the BACK STORY:

I started this company 28 years  ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square
foot studio apartment  for 3 years. My entire living apartment was
converted into an  office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a
company,  which by the way, would eventually employ you.

My diet  consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent
went  back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a
defective transmission. I didn't have time  to date. Often times, I stayed
home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying.
In fact, I was married to my business -- hard work, discipline, and

Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made
a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they  earned. They drove
flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and  wore fancy designer
clothes. Instead of hitting the Nordstrom's for the latest hot fashion
item, I was trolling through the  discount store extracting any clothing
item that didn't look like it was birthed in the 70's. My friends refinanced
their mortgages  and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my
time, my  money, and my life into a business with a vision that eventually,  
some day, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends
supposedly had.

So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at
about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don't. There is no "off" button for
me. When you leave the  office, you are done and you have a weekend
all to yourself. I  unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, and breathe
this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no
weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached
to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of  course, only see
the fruits of that garden -- the nice house, the  Mercedes, the vacations...
you never realize the Back Story and  the sacrifices I've made.

Now, the economy is falling  apart and I, the guy that made all the right
decisions and saved  his money, have to bail-out all the people who
didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled
to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for.  

Yes, business ownership has is benefits but the price I've paid is steep
and not without wounds.

Unfortunately,  the cost of running this business, and employing you,
is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell
you  why:

I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don't pay enough. I
have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property  taxes. Sales and use taxes.
Payroll taxes. Workers compensation  taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes
on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess
what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and
regulations and  all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of
my time.  On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US  Treasury for $288,000
for quarterly taxes. You know what my "stimulus" check was? Zero..
Nada. Zilch.

The question I  have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy
who has  provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000  
people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother  sitting
at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her  next welfare check?
Obviously, government feels the latter is the  economic stimulus of this

The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you'd quit
and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? That's nuts. Who
wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which  
is why your job is in jeopardy.

Here is what many of you  don't understand ... to stimulate the economy
you need to  stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government
mandated to me that I didn't need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of  
depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would  have
spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial  economic
growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of  that tax cut
in the form of promotions and better salaries. But  you can forget it

When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don't
defibrillate and shock his thumb  thinking that will bring him back to life,
do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of  
America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not
kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington  believe the poor of
America are the essential drivers of the American economic engine.
Nothing could  be further from the truth and this is the type of change
you can keep.

So where am I going with all this?

It's  quite simple.

If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be
swift and simple.  I'll fire  you.  I'll fire your co-workers. You can then
plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and
your child's  future. Frankly, it isn't my problem any more.

Then, I  will close this company down, move to another country, and  
You see, I'm done. I'm
done with a country that penalizes the
productive and gives to the  unproductive
. My motivation to work and
to provide jobs will  be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship.

So, if  you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the economy; it  
will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through  this
country, steamrolled the constitution, and will have changed  its
landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me sitting on a
beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about....  

Signed,  THE  BOSS



Has Obama's Promise Of Tax Cuts Shifted Further Down To Only Those Earning Under $120,000?

Today, Obama Campaign Surrogate Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) Further Lowered The Ceiling For Tax Cuts Under An Obama Administration To $120,000:
Gov. Bill Richardson: "What Obama wants to do is, he is basically looking at $120,000 and under, among those that are in the middle class, and there is a tax cut for those." (KOA-AM, Interview With Gov. Bill Richardson, 10/31/08)
Just A Few Days Ago, Biden Lowered The Ceiling For Tax Cuts To $150,000, Confirming What Obama Let Slip Earlier In The Campaign - That Americans Would See Higher Taxes Starting At $150,000:
Biden: "Spreading the wealth was not--he was talking about is all of the tax breaks have gone to the very, very wealthy. For example you have right now, this year, under the old tax policy that was just - that was put in by George Bush, people making an average 1.4 million a year, good people, decent people, patriotic - they're going to get an $87 billion tax break. What we're saying is that $87 billion tax break doesn't need to go to people making an average of $1.4 million, it should go like it used to. It should go to middle class people -- people making under $150,000 a year." (WNEP-Scranton, Interview With Sen. Joe Biden, 10/27/08)
FLASHBACK: In June 2008, Obama Told Reporters He Would Raise Taxes On The Top 5 Percent Of Earners. "Speaking to reporters in St. Louis, he said he would eliminate the capital gains tax 'for the small businesses and startups that are the backbone of our economy.' His income tax plans, Obama said, would cut taxes for 95 percent of U.S. workers, while rolling back the Bush administration's tax reductions for the highest-earning 5 percent." (Matt Apuzzo and Charles Babington, "McCain, Obama Trade Jabs On Economy, Taxes," The Associated Press, 6/11/08)
                                                                                                                                                        &n bsp;                       
  • Obama: "It Is True That Those Like Myself Who Are In The Top 5 Percent, We're Going To See A Tax Increase. I'm Going To Roll The Bush Tax Cuts Back To The Levels They Were In The 1990s." (Fox Business' "Fox Business," 6/26/08)
  • In 2006, The Cut Off For The Top 5 Percent Of Earners Began At About $150,000 - Well Below Obama's $250,000 Threshold. "Including all tax returns that had a positive AGI, taxpayers with an AGI of $153,542 or more in 2006 constituted the nation's top 5 percent of earners." (Gerald Prante, "Summary Of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data,", 7/18/08)
FLASHBACK: In June 2008, Obama National Campaign Co-Chair Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) Said Americans Earning Less Than $150,000 Would Be Exempt From Obama's Tax Increases. "[Sen. Claire] McCaskill called Obama middle-class tax cut 'massive' and stressed that those making 'under $150,000 a year would see no tax increase of any kind' -- not payroll tax, not capital gains, 'not a single tax,' [New Hampshire Congressman Paul] Hodes said." (Domenico Montanaro, "Obama V. McCain On Middle Class," MSNBC's "First Read" Blog,, 6/12/08)

In August, Obama's Advisors Acknowledged That Higher Taxes Would Start At $200,000:
August 2008: Obama's Economic Advisers Acknowledged That Individuals Would See Higher Taxes At $200,000, Not $250,000. Obama Advisors Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee: "Sen. Obama believes that one of the principal problems facing the economy today is the lack of discretionary income for middle-class wage earners. That's why his plan would not raise any taxes on couples making less than $250,000 a year, nor on any single person with income under $200,000 -- not income taxes, capital gains taxes, dividend or payroll taxes." (Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee, Op-Ed, "The Obama Tax Plan," The Wall Street Journal, 8/14/08)
Obama Economic Policy Adviser Jason Furman Also Said That Obama "Would Cut Taxes For Almost All Of The Families Making Less Than [$250,000]." Jason Furman: "Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the op-ed today makes a very important point that ... Barack Obama would not raise taxes for any family making below $250,000 -- in fact, it would cut taxes for almost all of the families making less than that ..." (Obama For America, Press Conference Call, 8/14/08)
In July, Obama Said Higher Taxes Would Start At $250,000, And Everyone Earning Less Than That Would See A Tax Cut:
July 2008: Obama: "If You Make $250,000 A Year Or Less, We Will Not Raise Your Taxes. We Will Cut Your Taxes." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Powder Springs, GA, 7/8/08)
FLASHBACK: In June, Obama Voted In Favor Of Raising Taxes On Americans Earning As Little As $42,000:
Obama Voted In Favor Of The Democrats' FY 2009 Budget Resolution. (S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 51-44: R 2-43; D 47-1; I 2-0, 3/14/08, Obama Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #142: Adopted 48-45: R 2-44; D 44-1; I 2-0, 6/4/08, Obama Voted Yea)

  • The Budget Resolution Would Have Allowed Most Of The Provisions Of The 2001 And 2003 Tax Cuts To Expire, Effectively Raising Taxes On Those Making $41,500 In Total Income. "What Obama voted for was a budget resolution that would have allowed most of the provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire. In particular, the resolution would allow the 25 percent tax bracket to return to its pre-2001 level of 28 percent. That bracket kicks in at $32,550 for an individual or $65,100 for a married couple. ... But as those of you who have filled out a 1040 know, that's not actually how income taxes work. We don't pay taxes on our total earnings; we pay them based on our 'taxable income.' The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center's Eric Toder told that 'people with taxable income of $32,000 would have a total income greater than that.' In 2008, anyone filing taxes with single status would be entitled to a standard deduction of $5,450, as well as a personal exemption of $3,500. So to have a taxable income high enough to reach the 25 percent bracket, an individual would need to earn at least $41,500 in total income, while a married couple would need a combined income of at least $83,000." ("The $32,000 Question,", 7/8/08)
  • "Obama's Votes Indicate A Willingness To Raise Taxes." "Certainly Obama's votes indicate a willingness to raise taxes, and Obama has not been shy about saying explicitly that he will raise some taxes." ("The $32,000 Question,", 7/8/08)

Terrific response.   Perhaps, in addition to radio, you should blog.

It also fit what my gut was telling me.  Nice to know.




From: Charles Heller Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 12:19 PM
To: xxx Subject: U.S. Intel: Iran Plans Nuclear Strike on U.S.

Richard -

   The base facts are accurate. Timmerman is credible. The problem is with the projections.

    First of all, an EMP attack would not cripple us. It would set us back a few weeks. We would repair
stuff and get back on our feet, albeit slowly at first. It would simply NOT reduce us to the horse and
buggy days. It would screw up all non-protected computer networks (broadband and such) and com-
puter controlled telephone switching. We would have dial up running before we got broadband back.

     Electrical grids would start getting fixed in a couple of days. It would knock us on our ass for
about 45 days on the civilian side, not nearly as much on the military side. Military stuff is better

 sheilded, and of course submerged ships would be unaffected. {: - ). One of the blessings is that
our military is so sperad out around the world that this would
disable very little of it.

    Those of us with a pool, a 30 day food supply, a propane stove, and a good full capacity rifle,
would be unaffected. People who live off the government dole (read New Orleans) would be in for
a rough go, for a while. Depends where it was detonated.

     You'd see feeding stations set up temporarily in various places for people with no resources.
Radio stations would get back on line fairly quickly, especially big ones with lots of spare parts
on hand. Generators are not that hard to fix.

    The U.S. set off a nuke in space in the 60's as a test. It knocked out a lot of stuff in Hawaii. That
was long before we had as much computer control of things as we do today. Suffice it to say it
would NOT return us all to horse and buggy days for very long, and when we got up, even Democrats
would have a will to fight and kill whoever did it to us.

     I suspect strongly that if this did happen, we would expend a number of Mark 48 ADCAP tor-
pedoes on every Iranian registerred freighter within 400 miles of our coasts. I know a couple of the
guys with their finger on the firing triggers. {: - )

     In short, not good, but not the end of the world. If Obama was pres, I don't think we would do
much except stamp our feet and have a hissy fit. If McCain were pres, we would either invade
something or use the Navy to pulverize something. I vote for the latter.

    Does Iran "plan" to do this? Every country's military has contingency plans to do almost every-
thing. That's what contingency planning is. Will they do it for real? Only in some scenario to dis-
tract us from what they plan for Israel. I think it is far more likely that they would do this to Israel
than to us, mostly to blind them for other attacks. If they did it to us, it would only be a feint or
cover for something else. What could be acheived by crippling us for a few weeks?

     The main results would be a bumper crop of Dodge Darts and Plymouth Valiants retaking the
roads.... {: - ) I'd be one of them.... Another thing that would happen is that the Ham operators would
spring into action to provide communications. You might see Hams riding with TPD for radio relay.
It would be a real "community event!"


Charles - How much truth do you think is in this?

U.S. Intel: Iran Plans Nuclear Strike on U.S.

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:00 AM

By: Kenneth R. Timmerman

Iran has carried out missile tests for what could be a plan for a nuclear strike on the United States, the
head of a national security panel has warned.

In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee and in remarks to a private conference on
missile defense over the weekend hosted by the Claremont Institute, Dr. William Graham warned that
the U.S. intelligence community "doesn't have a story" to explain the recent Iranian tests.

One group of tests that troubled Graham, the former White House science adviser under President
Ronald Reagan, were successful efforts to launch a Scud missile from a platform in the Caspian Sea.

"They've got [test] ranges in Iran which are more than long enough to handle Scud launches and even
Shahab-3 launches," Dr. Graham said. "Why would they be launching from the surface of the Caspian
Sea? They obviously have not explained that to us."

Another troubling group of tests involved Shahab-3 launches where the Iranians "detonated the warhead
near apogee, not over the target area where the thing would eventually land, but at altitude," Graham
said. "Why would they do that?"

Graham chairs the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic
Pulse (EMP) Attack, a blue-ribbon panel established by Congress in 2001.

The commission examined the Iranian tests "and without too much effort connected the dots," even
though the U.S. intelligence community previously had failed to do so, Graham said.

"The only plausible explanation we can find is that the Iranians are figuring out how to launch a missile
from a ship and get it up to altitude and then detonate it," he said. "And that's exactly what you would
do if you had a nuclear weapon on a Scud or a Shahab-3 or other missile, and you wanted to explode
it over the United States."

The commission warned in a report issued in April that the United States was at risk of a sneak nuclear
attack by a rogue nation or a terrorist group designed to take out our nation's critical infrastructure.

"If even a crude nuclear weapon were detonated anywhere between 40 kilometers to 400 kilometers
above the earth, in a split-second it would generate an electro-magnetic pulse [EMP] that would
cripple military and civilian communications, power, transportation, water, food, and other infra-
structure," the report warned.

While not causing immediate civilian casualties, the near-term impact on U.S. society would dwarf
the damage of a direct nuclear strike on a U.S. city.

"The first indication [of such an attack] would be that the power would go out, and some, but not all,
the telecommunications would go out. We would not physically feel anything in our bodies," Graham

As electric power, water and gas delivery systems failed, there would be "truly massive traffic jams,"
Graham added, since modern automobiles and signaling systems all depend on sophisticated
electronics that would be disabled by the EMP wave.

"So you would be walking. You wouldn't be driving at that point," Graham said. "And it wouldn't do
any good to call the maintenance or repair people because they wouldn't be able to get there, even
if you could get through to them."

The food distribution system also would grind to a halt as cold-storage warehouses stockpiling
perishables went offline. Even warehouses equipped with backup diesel generators would fail,
because "we wouldn't be able to pump the fuel into the trucks and get the trucks to the warehouses,"
Graham said.

The United States "would quickly revert to an early 19th century type of country." except that we
would have 10 times as many people with ten times fewer resources, he said.

"Most of the things we depend upon would be gone, and we would literally be depending on our own
assets and those we could reach by walking to them," Graham said.

America would begin to resemble the 2002 TV series, "Jeremiah," which depicts a world bereft of law,
infrastructure, and memory.

In the TV series, an unspecified virus wipes out the entire adult population of the planet. In an EMP
attack, the casualties would be caused by our almost total dependence on technology for everything
from food and water, to hospital care.

Within a week or two of the attack, people would start dying, Graham says.

"People in hospitals would be dying faster than that, because they depend on power to stay alive. But
then it would go to water, food, civil authority, emergency services. And we would end up with a country
with many, many people not surviving the event."

Asked just how many Americans would die if Iran were to launch the EMP attack it appears to be
preparing, Graham gave a chilling reply.

"You have to go back into the 1800s to look at the size of population" that could survive in a nation
deprived of mechanized agriculture, transportation, power, water, and communication.

"I'd have to say that 70 to 90 percent of the population would not be sustainable after this kind of
attack," he said.

America would be reduced to a core of around 30 million people ? about the number that existed in
the decades after America's independence from Great Britain.

The modern electronic economy would shut down, and America would most likely revert to "an earlier
economy based on barter," the EMP commission's report on Critical National Infrastructure concluded
earlier this year.

In his recent congressional testimony, Graham revealed that Iranian military journals, translated by the
CIA at his commission's request, "explicitly discuss a nuclear EMP attack that would gravely harm the
United States."

Furthermore, if Iran launched its attack from a cargo ship plying the commercial sea lanes off the East
coast ? a scenario that appears to have been tested during the Caspian Sea tests ? U.S. investigators
might never determine who was behind the attack. Because of the limits of nuclear forensic technology,
it could take months. And to disguise their traces, the Iranians could simply decide to sink the ship
that had been used to launch it, Graham said.

Several participants in last weekend's conference in Dearborn, Mich., hosted by the conservative
Claremont Institute argued that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was thinking about an EMP
attack when he opined that "a world without America is conceivable."

In May 2007, then Undersecretary of State John Rood told Congress that the U.S. intelligence community
estimates that Iran could develop an ICBM capable of hitting the continental United States by 2015.

But Iran could put a Scud missile on board a cargo ship and launch from the commercial sea lanes off
America's coasts well before then.

The only thing Iran is lacking for an effective EMP attack is a nuclear warhead, and no one knows with
any certainty when that will occur. The latest U.S. intelligence estimate states that Iran could acquire
the fissile material for a nuclear weapon as early as 2009, or as late as 2015, or possibly later.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld first detailed the "Scud-in-a-bucket" threat during a briefing in

Huntsville, Ala., on Aug. 18, 2004.

While not explicitly naming Iran, Rumsfeld revealed that "one of the nations in the Middle East had
launched a ballistic missile from a cargo vessel. They had taken a short-range, probably Scud missile,
put it on a transporter-erector launcher, lowered it in, taken the vessel out into the water, peeled back
the top, erected it, fired it, lowered it, and covered it up. And the ship that they used was using a radar
and electronic equipment that was no different than 50, 60, 100 other ships operating in the immediate

Iran's first test of a ship-launched Scud missile occurred in spring 1998, and was mentioned several
months later in veiled terms by the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United
States, a blue-ribbon panel also known as the Rumsfeld Commission.

I was the first reporter to mention the Iran sea-launched missile test in an article appearing in the
Washington Times in May 1999.

Intelligence reports on the launch were "well known to the White House but have not been disseminated
to the appropriate congressional committees," I wrote. Such a missile "could be used in a devastating
stealth attack against the United States or Israel for which the United States has no known or planned

Few experts believe that Iran can be deterred from launching such an attack by the threat of massive
retaliation against Iran. They point to a December 2001 statement by former Iranian President Ali Akbar
Hashemi-Rafsanjani, who mulled the possibility of Israeli retaliation after an Iranian nuclear strike.

"The use of an atomic bomb against Israel would destroy Israel completely, while [the same] against
the Islamic only would cause damages. Such a scenario is not inconceivable," Rafsanjani said at the

Rep. Trent Franks, R, Ariz., plans to introduce legislation next week that would require the Pentagon
to lay the groundwork for an eventual military strike against Iran, to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear
weapons and EMP capability.

"An EMP attack on America would send us back to the horse and buggy era ? without the horse and
buggy," he told the Claremont Institute conference on Saturday. "If you're a terrorist, this is your
ultimate goal, your ultimate asymmetric weapon."

Noting Iran's recent sea-launched and mid-flight warhead detonation tests, Rep. Franks concluded,
"They could do it ? either directly or anonymously by putting some freighter out there on the ocean."

The only possible deterrent against Iran is the prospect of failure, Dr. Graham and other experts
agreed. And the only way the United States could credibly threaten an Iranian missile strike would
be to deploy effective national missile defenses.

"It's well known that people don't go on a diet until they've had a heart attack," said Claremont
Institute president Brian T. Kennedy. "And we as a nation are having a heart attack" when it comes
to the threat of an EMP attack from Iran.

"As of today, we have no defense against such an attack. We need space-based missile defenses
to protect against an EMP attack," he told Newsmax.

Rep. Franks said he remains surprised at how partisan the subject of space-based missile defenses
remain. "Nuclear missiles don't discriminate on party lines when they land," he said.

Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl, a long-standing champion of missile defense, told the Claremont
conference on Friday that Sen. Obama has opposed missile defense tooth and nail and as president
would cut funding for these programs dramatically.

"Senator Obama has been quoted as saying, ?I don't agree with a missile defense system,' and that
we can cut $10 billion of the research out ? never mind, as I say, that the entire budget is $9.6 billion,
or $9.3 billion," Kyl said.

Like Franks, Kyl believes that the only way to eventually deter Iran from launching an EMP attack on
the United States is to deploy robust missile defense systems, including space-based interceptors.

The United States "needs a missile defense that is so strong, in all the different phases we need to
defend against . . . that countries will decide it's not worth coming up against us," Kyl said.

"That's one of the things that defeated the Soviet Union. That's one of the ways we can deal with these
rogue states . . . and also the way that we can keep countries that are not enemies today, but are
potential enemies, from developing capabilities to challenge us. "

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

This is something you should be aware of so you don't get blind sided. This is
really going to catch a lot of families off guard.  
Proposed changes in taxes after 2008 General election:

0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not
propose any change in existing home sales income tax.

28% on profit from ALL home sales
How does this affect you?  If you sell your home and make a profit, you will
pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and
would like  to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 
28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal
will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their
homes as part of their retirement income.

MCCAIN       15% (no change)
OBAMA        39.6%
How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market,
IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance,  retirement accounts, or
anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be  paying nearly
40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The
experts predict that 'Higher tax rates  on dividends and capital gains
would crash the stock market, yet do  absolutely nothing to cut the


MCCAIN         (no changes)
Single making 30K - tax $4,500 
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250
OBAMA  (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)
Single making 30K - tax $8,400  
Single making 50K - tax $14,000  
Single making 75K - tax $23,250  
Married making 60K - tax $16,800  
Married making 75K - tax $21,000  
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
Under Obama, your taxes will more than double!
How does this affect you? No explanation needed. This is pretty straight 


MCCAIN   0%     (No change, Bush repealed this tax)
OBAMA               Restore the inheritance tax
How does this affect you? Many families have lost businesses, farms,
ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations 
because they  could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their
assets to loved  ones will only lose them to these taxes.

New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400
square feet.
New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already)
New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, 
New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....
New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same 
level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!

On July 4th, we had a listener party at the Loft Theater in Tucson, running the movie "Patton." A good time was had by all. It stimulated the listener response, below:

This reminds me.  I meant to tell you, I had a neighbor, Porter Williamson, who served with Patton for a while in 1941-42.  He wrote a couple of small books on Patton.  He told of Patton's guys who laughed and joked about how Patton would die.  One story after he died was this:
Patton demanded of God, "What in the name of hell is the idea of having me killed in an auto accident?  I asked and prayed to you to take my life in combat.  How unthoughtful of you to pick me off in a stupid  auto accident.  What kind of death is that for a soldier?  Give me orders to go to hell!  I cannot face my own brave soldiers who have earned their places in heaven."
God answered, "If you want to go to hell, it can be arranged!"
Gen. Patton saluted, clicked his heels, did a sharp about face and walked away.
God called to him, "General Patton, on giving your request some serious thought, I wish you would reconsider and stay with us."
Gen. Patton protested, "I do not belong here.  I am going to hell!"
God pleaded, "I don't want you to go to hell.  I want you here with us.  If you go to hell, it will be only a few weeks until you will destroy the devil, put out all the fires of hell, and my people will leave heaven to be with you.  Please stay, for heaven's sake!"
Gen. Patton hesitated so God added, "And we will let you wear your uniform any time you wish!"

Response to State Senator Paula Aboud On Senate Bill 1214

Dear Senator Aboud -
     I'd like to reply to your response to Mr. Lundberg, copied below. First of all, though, thank you for your civil tone to Mr. Lundberg, which is more than he has goten from some legislators.
     Paula, knowing you from your Tucson campaign, and knowing you to be a person of conscience, I am struck by your lack of sensitivity to this issue. The "people most affected" by this legislation, are NOT the regents or the teachers. The people "most affected" are the ones in the path of the bullets launched by violent criminal actors. How can you ignore the needs of a person under criminal attack? How can you be so insensitive to "victims?" Can you not apply the same standards to this as you would, say domestic violence?
     You claim that, "I don't believe in mandates." Senator Aboud, by objecting to this legislation, you are mandating that a student be a potential target in a state generated, disarmed victim zone. Care to do a quick reality check on "mandates?" What is a bigger "mandate," sentencing a person to an ineffective defense to lethal attack, or "mandating" a few people to the "discomfort" of knowing that a few around them possess that means? this is not a rhetorical debate - it's a real life question of survival!
      If I didn't think that you were well meaning, I would not bother to write you, but I know that you think. While we don't often agree on things, at least you employ reason in the debate. Please answer me based on objective reality: is it more important that you pay heed to peoples' "feelings" of comfort, or their rights to defend themselves via the appropriate tools?
     Senator Aboud, can you "mandate" the elimination of fires by banning fire extinguishers? The morality of the two examples is identical. Many on your side of the isle like to talk about "stakeholders" in an issue. Well who is the bigger "stakeholder," the one in the line of fire or the regent in an office off campus somewhere?
     You ask which gunman the police would apprehend. Please let me give you a response based on being a person certified by the state to teach this to others: the police are trained to apprehend the violent criminal actor. That is the one who is shooting the unarmed people. they have the training and the brains to figure that out! Furthermore, at the Judiciary Committee Hearing on March 4th, Chief John L. Pickens said that their response was at best 3 minutes, but realistically, 5 minutes. Then they form a team and "swarm in."
     Civilian gunfights usually last less than 3 seconds when 2 people are involved. If you multiply that by a factor for 30 victims, the entire event will be over in 90 seconds. If you then double that, to add a "fudge factor," you get three minutes, which is just about when the first police arrive to start putting a "swarm" team together. By the time this happens, if there is a CCW permitee in the room, the fight will have been over for 2 minutes, 57 seconds, plenty of time for any of my students to reholster and not present a threat to the arriving police.
     In the event that the violent criminal actor is still alive and being held at gunpoint, the CCW permitee has had the training he needs in how to respond to the arriving officers, sufficient to his not getting shot. This is exactly what happened when Vice Principal Joel Myrick held Luke Woodham at gunpoint after Woodham's massacre at a high school. Read it for yourself at: . The exact same result occurred when two students at the Appalachian Law School held a violent criminal actor at gunpoint for police on a university campus in January 2002. Again, see it for yourself at: . Cops DO NOT shoot the CCW permitee who is hoding the violent criminal actor at gunpoint!
     The law (ARS 13-3112) REQUIRES that "dealing with law enforcement" be part of the training. I would also point out that in the two recent events where this has happened at schools, neither has resulted in the police getting it wrong. It happened only 4 days ago in Israel:
, and only last December in Arvada Colorado: .
     For goodness sake, Senator Aboud please perform due diligence and look at the evidence, not just the apocryphal stories that administrators and political police officers are telling you.
     Let me state this out loud and in the clear: there has never been a U.S. incident of a police officer shooting a CCW permitee who was involved in a legitimate act of self defense. NOT ONE. Police in Arizona made the same arguements in the fight over the original CCW permit as they are saying now, and it did not come true. Please, please, please, do NOT take my word for it. Call the DPS CCW unit and ask them how things are working. Ask them why permits have increased by over 40,000 in the last two years!
     Lastly, you say that "public school teachers and students oppose this bill." That's the wrong constituency. Respectfully, they are not the most qualified to make that judgment, although they are certainly entitled to their opinion. The people most qualified are the ones who take on the awesome responsibility of self defense and its tools. They are the ones who have bothered to get the training and jump through the hoops to be qualified to legally perform their duties as a citizen. That's why federal law provides for it in 18 USC, Sect 922, in the exemption for people with CCW permits to be within 1000 feet of a school. They share this exemption with police officers!
     I certainly understand that one of the reasons that you are in office is the passion that drives you to it. Please do not let that passion overcome your sense of reason to determine the underlying facts in this case.
Charles Heller
Az CCW Instructor since 1994
Host, America Armed & Free
AM 690 KVOI Tucson
AM 930 KAPR Douglas
AM 1240 KJAA Globe
Secretary, AzCDL

From: "Paula Aboud" <> To: <>
Subject: RE: Support SB 1214  Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:05:40 +0000

Thanks for writing.  Glad to hear opposing opinions delivered respectfully.


   I don't happen to agree with your opinion; after conversing with the President Shelton from UA, his opinion and that of his campus police are that pandemonium would rule if police responded to a crisis call (w/in 2 minutes) which gun man would they apprehend?


  In addition, school superintendents, teachers, principals and counselors overwhelmingly oppose this legislation.


  I don't believe in mandates.  While I do support second amendment rights, I firmly believe that  Legislators need to let those individuals most affected create policy for their own schools. 
   Public school students and teachers galore oppose this bill.   So do I. 
   Thanks for writing.


Paula Aboud
State Senator
District 28, Tucson
1-800-352-8404 X 6-5262

Ranking Democrat:  Appropriations Committee
Health Committee
Higher Education Committee

From: [] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 6:30 AM
To: Paula Aboud; Amanda Aguirre; Carolyn Allen; Marsha Arzberger; Tim Bee; Robert Blendu; Robert Burns; Meg Burton Cahill; Ken Cheuvront; Jake Flake; Jorge Luis Garcia; Pamela Gorman; Ron Gould; Chuck Gray; Linda Gray; Albert Hale; Jack Harper; John Huppenthal; Karen S. Johnson; Leah Landrum-Taylor; Barbara Leff; Debbie McCune Davis; Richard Miranda; Tom O'Halleran; Charlene Pesquiera; Rebecca Rios; Victor Soltero; Jay Tibshraeny; Thayer Verschoor; Jim Waring
Subject: Support SB 1214


The Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL) has informed me that SB 1214 will soon be debated in the Senate Committee of the Whole, and voted on in Third Read.  I urge you to vote for the passage of SB 1214.

Federal law (18 USC ? 922(q)(2)(B)(ii)) already provides an exception, for concealed weapons (CCW) permit holders, on the restriction regarding the possession of firearms on school property.  SB 1214 complies with Federal law by removing the current restrictions on public college and university property.  In addition to satisfying State mandated firearms training requirements, which include a written and skills test, CCW permit holders must be 21 year old ADULTS, and undergo routine background checks by the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to verify that they are the most law-abiding of the citizenry.

The presence of armed, law-abiding citizens is a proven crime deterrent.  Utah has allowed CCW permit holders to carry concealed handguns on college campuses since 2006.  Since this was implemented there has not been a single act of gun related violence on those campuses.

Where law-abiding adults have access to firearms, violence ends quickly.  In 2002, at Virginia's Appalachian Law School, a shooting spree ended when two armed adult students confronted the attacker, and persuaded him to surrender.  In 1997, the vice-principal of a high school in Pearl, Mississippi, armed himself and ended a shooting rampage without firing a shot.

Restrictive laws, not access to firearms, have led to a rise in school shootings.  Prior to 1968, any child could buy a gun through the mail.  Most schools had shooting clubs, and it was common for students to store their rifles in classrooms.  Yet, school shootings were almost unheard of.  Now, with irrational gun bans in place everywhere, anyone determined to do a lot of harm knows that they can literally get away with murder on school grounds, because no one will stop them until it's too late.  On April 16, 2007, twenty-seven students and five faculty members at Virginia Tech lost their lives to a madman who possessed one distinct advantage over his victims ? he wasn't concerned with following the "gun free zone" rules.  Nineteen of his thirty-two victims were over twenty-one, the legal age for obtaining a concealed handgun permit in Virginia (and Arizona).

Opponents of SB 1214 will claim that law enforcement won't be able to tell the difference between armed defenders and armed assailants when they eventually arrive on the scene.  This has not been an issue with concealed carry permit holders in other walks of life, for several reasons.  First, real-world shootouts are typically localized and over very quickly.  Police rarely encounter an ongoing shootout between assailants and armed citizens.  Second, police are also trained to expect both armed bad guys and armed good guys, from off-duty/undercover police officers to armed citizens, in tactical scenarios.  Finally, concealed weapon permit holders are trained to use the ir firearms for self-defense, respond properly to a police presence, and not run through buildings looking for bad guys.  The biggest distinction between the armed assailants and the armed citizens is that the armed assailants would be running around shooting unarmed victims.

Again, I strongly support this important legislation, and I urge you to vote for the passage of SB 1214.

Jon W. Lundberg, Sr.
Oro Valley, AZ 

Response To A Tucson Citizen Columnist On Senate Bill 1214
Mrs. Denogean's article displays a stunning lack of of subject knowledge in the areas of self defense, government responsibility for individual defense, and the technology of defensive impliments.
First of all, there is no shuch thing a s a wearable vest that is "bullet proof." While she might indeed look stunning in soft body armor, they are only "bullet resistant." Frankly, I cannot immagine anyone in the journalism profession not owning one, for covering dangerous assignments.
Next lets address House Bill 2629, sponsored by Russell Pearce. It is pretty clear here that Mrs. Denogean is not familiar with use of force issues. As a state certified concealed weapons instructor, I have to explain to each student that the diference between issuing a verbal threat, and putting one's hand on a defensive tool (such as a firearm) can be the diference between jail and freedom. 2629 specifically says that in a defensive display, you may not point a weapon at the person who is threatening you, merely display it. Rule 2 in safe gun handling is: always point the muzzle in a safe direction. 2629 comports exactly with that common sense gun handling rule.
The vast majority of DGU's (defensive gun uses) do not result in the dishcharge of the defense tool. According to Professor Gary Kleck of The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995, there are about 2.5 million DGU's per year in the United States.
 The number of defensive shootings is far smaller than that, about 3,000 a year. This clearly indicates that rarely are guns fired in self defense, but frequently they are displayed. Again, HB 2629 comports exactly with the real life uses of defensive weaponry. What's wrong with that?
Representative Pearce tells about a man who went through a year of hell with the legal system after a defensive display of a shotgun. One must objectively ask, why? Why should the defensive display of any tool of self defense cause someone legal trouble if they did no damage and caused no injury, all while excercising his or her right to self defense?
Mrs. Denogan's article seems emblematic of a delusion suffered by a growing number of people in America, namely that the government has a duty to protect the individual citizen. Those of you that think that could benefit by reading what the 7th Circuit Court has to say about the issue in Bowers vs. Devito, 686 F.2d 616, at 618 (7th Cir. 1982): "There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered..."
The reason that it is called "self defense," is that it is done by the SELF.
On February 18th, I attended a hearing before the Arizona Senate Judiciary committe. Among those who testified at that hearing were ASU Police Chief John L. Pickens, (formerly with the NIU DeKalb, Illinois Police Department, by the way) said, "we cannot prevent these shootings [Such as the NIU massacre.] We can train and respond as quickly as we can, but we cannot porevent them."
Mrs. Denogean, when a public official dutifully admits that they cannot do a thing, will you search your soul and ask what must be done next? If a madman enters your daughter's classroom and points a deadly weapon at her, (assuming she is of age) would you want her to have a cell phone, or the tools and ability to extinguish the threat? It's that simple, do you want her ability to fight back supported by good law, or should she rely on an agent of government to protect her?
Arizona Citizens Defense Leage board member Duke Schechter coined the phrase, "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away." You decide, Madame. My daughter has the training she needs. Will yours?
Charles Heller

Secretary, Arizona Citizens Defense League
Arizona Concealed Weapons Instructor
Host, America Armed & Free
AM 690, KVOI Tucson
AM 930 KAPR Douglas
AM 1240 KJAAA Globe

Denogean: If these bills pass, I'm buying bulletproof vest

Tucson Citizen
A batch of bills that would allow Arizonans to carry guns in more places and with fewer restrictions has me wondering what our state legislators are smoking.
Gunpowder, perhaps?
Consider HB 2629, which would allow anybody who feels intimidated by another to respond by showing a gun, drawing it or announcing that he has a weapon or both. It passed the House Judiciary Committee last week despite law enforcement concerns that such a law could turn mere disagreements into deadly gunbattles. The bill is also unnecessary.
Under existing state law, Arizonans can threaten or use deadly force to protect themselves or another person if they believe they are in danger of somebody hurting or killing them. They also can protect their homes from criminal trespassers.
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, insisted the state law needs clarification. He cited a road-rage case in which a man who was being harassed by a carload of kids pulled off the freeway and sat on the back of his car with his shotgun pointed in the air. Police arrested him for aggravated assault, Pearce said.
"He was doing nothing but saying, 'Leave me alone,' " Pearce said. Did the charge hold up? No. He was exonerated because of existing law.
Pearce said that's irrelevant. People shouldn't be arrested for trying to ward off violence. The man suffered through a year of wondering if he was going to jail, Pearce said.
"One of the greatest tragedies is when we improperly charge a good citizen," he said.
Of course, I hope I'm not on the freeway when one "good citizen" with a bad temper and a shotgun runs into another "good citizen" with a bad temper and a shotgun. As they say, bullets don't come with a name on them.
Sen. Karen Johnson, R-Mesa, operating on the premise that the answer to gun violence on school campuses is more guns, introduced SB 1214 on Feb. 15. It was the day after a gunman killed himself and five others at Northern Illinois University.
The bill would allow a person with a concealed-weapons permit to carry guns onto community college and university campuses. Earlier versions of the bill also would have allowed weapons on K-12 campuses. Johnson has argued it would allow students and teachers to "plug" a crazed shooter before police respond.
Pearce, a bill co-sponsor, noted that a woman with a gun stopped an attack on a Colorado church in December by shooting the gunman, who was armed with an assault rifle, two guns and as many as 1,000 rounds of ammunition.
Of course, the heroine, Jeanne Assam, was a church security guard with law enforcement experience.
All it takes in Arizona to obtain a concealed carry permit is completion of an eight-hour firearms-safety training program, submission of a fingerprint card and a $60 fee.
The billed passed the Senate Judiciary Committee Monday, despite opposition from police chiefs at the three state universities. They testified earlier that the bill would make for more dangerous, not safer, campuses.
They worry about the carnage that could occur as police try to distinguish a criminal from five or six would-be heroes brandishing weapons.
Oh, and to get real cute, Johnson also introduced SB 1400, which holds any government agency, private organization or person that establishes a gun-free zone financially liable for damages that result from criminal gun conduct against a person in the zone. A person could file suit if he believes that possession of a firearm could have helped him defend against the criminal conduct.
The damages would be tripled if someone under 16 or over 69 was affected.
Not content merely to have people waving around guns on campuses and highways across the state, another conservative legislator introduced a bill to allow people to carry firearms into restaurants that serve liquor, as long as the establishment's owner posts permission. Past versions of the bill also would have allowed gun owners to carry weapons into bars.
Rep. Jack Harper, R-Surprise, sponsor of SB 1132, says it's a property rights and Second Amendment rights issue.
Under the bill, the person carrying a weapon couldn't drink.
That's sensible. But would you want to be the waitress telling an irate customer who's packing he can't have a beer?
Backers of the bills say such laws should make all Arizonans feel safer.
Really? They make me want to get fitted for a bulletproof vest for everyday wear.
Anne T. Denogean can be reached at 573-4582 and Address letters to P.O. Box 26767, Tucson, AZ 85726-6767. Her columns run Tuesdays and Fridays.

Columbine To Va. Tech To NIU - Gun-Free Zones Or Killing Fields?

February 26, 2008

As Northern Illinois University restarts classes this week, one thing is clear: Six minutes proved too long.

It took six minutes before the police were able to enter the classroom that horrible Thursday, and in that short time five people were murdered, 16 wounded.

Six minutes is actually record-breaking speed for the police arriving at such an attack, but it was simply not fast enough. Still, the police were much faster than at the Virginia Tech attack last year.

The previous Thursday, five people were killed in the city council chambers in Kirkwood, Mo. There was even a police officer already there when the attack occurred.

But, as happens time after time in these attacks when uniformed police are there, the killers either wait for the police to leave the area or they are the first people killed. In Kirkwood, the police officer was killed immediately when the attack started. People cowered or were reduced to futilely throwing chairs at the killer.

Just like attacks last year at the Westroads Mall in Omaha, Neb., the Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City and the recent attack at the Tinley Park Mall in Illinois, or all the public school attacks, they had one thing in common: They took place in "gun-free zones," where private citizens were not allowed to carry their guns with them.

The malls in Omaha and Salt Lake City were in states that let people carry concealed handguns, but private property owners are allowed to post signs that ban guns; those malls were among the few places in their states that chose such a ban.

In the Trolley Square attack, an off-duty police officer fortunately violated the ban and stopped the attack. The attack at Virginia Tech or the other public school attacks occur in some of the few areas within their states that people are not allowed to carry concealed handguns.

It is not just recent killings that are occurring in these gun-free zones. The Columbine High School shooting left 13 murdered in 1999; Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, had 23 who were fatally shot by a deranged man in 1991; and a McDonald's in Southern California had 21 people shot dead in 1984.

Nor are these horrible incidents limited to just gun-free zones in the U.S. In 1996, Martin Bryant killed 35 people in Port Arthur, Australia. In the last half-dozen years, European countries ? including France, Germany and Switzerland ? have experienced multiple-victim shootings. The worst in Germany resulted in 17 deaths; in Switzerland, one attack claimed the lives of 14 regional legislators.

At some point you would think the media would notice that something is going on here, that these murderers aren't just picking their targets at random. And this pattern isn't really too surprising. Most people understand that guns deter criminals.

If a killer were stalking your family, would you feel safer putting a sign out front announcing, "This home is a gun-free zone"? But that is what all these places did.

Even when attacks occur, having civilians with permitted concealed handguns limits the damage. A major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the amount of time that elapses between when the attack starts and someone is able to arrive on the scene with a gun.

In cases from the Colorado Springs church shooting last December, in which a parishioner who was given permission by the minister to carry her concealed gun into the church quickly stopped the murder, to an attack last year in downtown Memphis to the Appalachian Law School to high schools in such places as Pearl, Miss., concealed handgun permit holders have stopped attacks well before uniformed police could possibly have arrived. Just a few weeks ago, Israeli teachers stopped a terrorist attack at a school in their country.

Indeed, despite the fears being discussed about the risks of concealed handgun permit holders, I haven't found one of these multiple-victim public shootings where a permit holder has accidentally shot a bystander.

With about 5 million Americans currently with concealed handgun permits in the U.S., and with states starting to have right-to-carry laws for as long as 80 years, we have a lot of experience with these laws and one thing is very clear: Concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding. Those who lose their permits for any gun-related violation are measured in the hundredths or thousandths of a percentage point.

We also have a lot of experience with permitted concealed handguns in schools. Prior to the 1995 Safe School Zone Act, states with right-to-carry laws let teachers or others carry concealed handguns at school. There is not a single instance that I or others have found where this produced a single problem.

Though in a minority, a number of universities ? from large public schools such as Colorado State and the University of Utah to small private schools such as Hamline in Minnesota ? let students carry concealed handguns on school property.

Many more schools, from Dartmouth College to Boise State University, let professors carry concealed handguns. Again, with no evidence of problems.

Few know that Dylan Klebold, one of the two Columbine killers, was closely following Colorado legislation that would have let citizens carry a concealed handgun. Klebold strongly opposed the legislation and openly talked about it.

No wonder, as the bill being debated would have allowed permitted guns to be carried on school property. It is quite a coincidence that he attacked Columbine High School the very day the legislature was scheduled to vote on the bill.

With all the media coverage of the types of guns used and how the criminal obtained the gun, at some point the news media might begin to mention the one common feature of these attacks: They keep occurring in gun-free zones.

Gun-free zones are a magnet for these attacks.

Lott is the author of "Freedomnomics" and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland.

Note this great President's many admonitions regarding prayer. As we give thanks for our many blessings
let us all offer up prayers for our President, our Congress, our troops,  and our loved ones.  May this day
be one of reflection for all of us as we express our thanks for all of our blessings and that we live in the
greatest country in the world. 

George Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to "recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A.D. 1789.

Jim Foreman []
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 6:54 PM
Cc: Karen S. Johnson;; azcdlfred
Subject: Letter to the Editor regarding SB 1214

Dear East Valley Tribune Editorial Board,

I believe, without hesitation, that trained and licensed students and faculty should be allowed to
carry a concealed firearm at any Arizona campus and WOULD be a definite safety factor.

We are not left guessing what would happen if those who are lawfully licensed to carry guns were
allowed in schools. It is already legal in Utah and in Oregon.

To date, there are no reports of permit holders shooting up schools.  In Fact, There are no reports
of violent or mentally disturbed individuals shooting up those schools either.

We do not have to speculate about the effectiveness of lawful citizens stopping or preventing school
shootings. At the Appalachian School of Law shooting, Students ran to their cars and retrieved their
firearms.  The shooter was confronted and immediately prevented from injuring any more students.  
The students did not need to fire a shot, yet it was the presence of a firearm that let the shooter to
stop and eventually be taken into custody.  In Pearl, Mississippi, an assistant principal ran to his
cars, got his firearm, and stopped the shooter. In both instances, the shooter gave up when faced
with an armed citizen.

When looked at, non-emotionally, the "well, what if ..." conversation is really quite silly.  Concealed
carry on campus being done now, and there are NO NEGATIVE EFFECTS.  It can be successfully
argued that there have been positive effects.  NO SCHOOL SHOOTINGS in either of these two nearby

The comment by Particia Abraham, "With all the anger and hate that is going on in the world today,
why would anyone suggest guns in schools? Who's to say that if someone comes into school meaning
harm that they would pick the classroom with the guns in it? 
"  is simply outrageous.  Had a student,
or teacher been there or nearby, armed, 32 innocent lives may not have been needlessly wasted.  It
took a confrontation with an armed person (police officer) to stop the Virginia Tech shooter.  Why did
the number have to go as high as 32.  Armed citizens, just as police officers on campus, are no
guarantee that evil won't occur.  It simply means that there is a much more likely chance lives can
be saved.  

This is exactly what happened in the 'Trolley Square Mall' shooting in Salt Lake City, Utah.  An armed
citizen (off-duty police officer) engaged the shooter ending his rampage of innocent holiday shoppers.  
A classic example of what can happen in these so-called 'Gun Free Zones'.  More recently an armed
citizen in Colorado stopped a crazed armed attacker from, as the police put it, killing possibly hundreds 
of parishioners in what could have been a horrendous church shooting.  She was a hero and many owe
their lives to her quick thinking and being armed.

The folly in believing we can simply wish for evil or mentally disturbed people to not shoot up a school because of a 'no-guns' sign or law is not what a sensible and civil society needs.

I do realize it's en vogue for school officials and the teachers "feel" like they can't tolerate guns in schools, well how do they "feel" about dealing with a nut case shooting the teachers and students with absolutely NO RESISTANCE? Most criminals are basically cowards and do not want to die.   Criminals and mentally disturbed people do not commit a mass murder at a police station, gun range, gun shop, or any place else that they know that they have a better chance of being stopped before they can do their cowardly deed.

Ed Davis, Criminal Investigative Instructor, FBI Behavioral Science Unit said it best whereby, none of the violent attackers interviewed was "hindered by any law, federal, state or local, that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws."

Nationwide we have over 20,000 Gun-control laws and bans and so far, according to a recent study by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), not one of the laws have stopped even one nut from doing what he wanted to do. IT IS TIME FOR CHANGE AND THAT TIME IS NOW!  We need to allow concealed handgun licensees to carry anywhere, EVEN SCHOOLS.

Jim Foreman
Prescott Valley, AZ
New gun control: Shut down shops
Store says feds confiscating licenses for inadvertent trivia

Posted: June 26, 2007
9:26 p.m. Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2007

The government is using paperwork errors as small as the abbreviation of a city name to shut
down some of the nation's longest-serving gun shops, and 2nd Amendment advocates fear
the right to bear arms will mean little if there's no way to obtain a gun.

"No good deed goes unpunished," Larry Pratt, of Gun Owners of America, told WND while
confirming that as recently as 15 or 20 years ago, there were 250,000 licensed gun dealers
in the United States.

Rest of article:

October 02, 2007

Next Time Scream 'LIBRESCU!'

By William R. Hartman

Ever since hearing of the tragic deaths at Virginia Tech last April, I have been deeply troubled
by the number of people killed by a lone gunman wielding two hand guns in the midst of
dozens of people.

Why was Seing-Hui Cho able to methodically move from classroom to classroom - four in
total - killing 29 people and wounding at least 26 more, with so little effort to stop or to
disarm him?

Why was the kill rate so high?

Why was there no offensive response by the overwhelming numbers being attacked?

Why was 76-year-old Professor Liviu Librescu one of the very few willing to take an
offensive posture, and sacrificing his own life, to save students in his class?

And most important of all: What can I do for my family and friends to give them a better
chance of survival when something like this happens again?

I believe the answers lie in mental preparation for such an event.  More precisely, I believe
we can substantially reduce the kill rate when a Virginia Tech event such as this one occurs
again by choreographing, with professional military/police advice, group response to such
an attack.  I believe the memory of Professor Librescu and his name, screamed at the top
of our lungs, can ignite a life-saving group response.

What if, when Seing-Hui Cho entered Classroom 206 on April 16 - as the first drop of blood
fell - the 13 graduate students present, along with Professor Loganathan, at the top of their
lungs had screamed "LIBRESCU!"  And if instantly each student and the professor - because
the situation had been visualized dozens of times before in their minds -
had started throwing
every loose item in the classroom including computers, cell phones, PDAs, purses, backpacks,
shoes, books, and water bottles at Cho.  And what if, almost simultaneously, each of them had
started running toward Cho and attacking with the clear intent to subdue and immobilize.

And what if every other student and professor within earshot of room 206, upon hearing the
screams of "LIBRESCU!" had grabbed everything they could find to bar their own classroom
doors.  What if they had immediately prepared to tackle and subdue anyone who successfully
broke through their barriers.

Visualize this instant - aggressive "LIBRESCU!" group response to Cho's actions - the morning
of April 16 instead of the confusion and paralysis that in fact happened as Cho methodically
went from classroom to classroom, killing and maiming all in his presence.  Now visualize a
"LIBRESCU!" response where your children go to school, where you worship, on your train
coming from work, in an airplane cabin, in a restaurant.

Can we train for such a response?  Of course we can.  And we must.

I propose that leaders of all groups of people - including governments, universities, companies,
churches, schools, unions and associations - get to work immediately to prevent, or at least
contain, another mass slaughter.  Here's how:

  • Engage professionals to design the best possible group response to maximize the survival
    rate.  (And why shouldn't the Department of Homeland Security lead the way, with its own
    expertise and with funding?)
  • Develop videos depicting attacks by one or a few gunmen on a group, along with the
    appropriate response by the group to maximize survival upon hearing the scream
    "LIBRESCU!"  (Once again, why shouldn't DHS help out by at least paying for widespread
    distribution of such videos?)
  • Play these videos for your team every few months.
  • As we do with fire drills, practice group response whenever large groups of people gather. 
    And above all, practice the scream "LIBRESCU!"

If this makes sense to you, and especially to those of you who lead groups of people, you can
unilaterally respond right now.  Share these thoughts with others.  Get the dialogue and debate
started.  You can arm your people, not with guns but with the knowledge and training that will
provide the best possible chance for survival.


Why not?


One final question to ponder:  Did Professor Librescu, a Holocaust survivor, respond as he did
because of the thousands of times he had run his exact response to Cho through his mind? 
Were the last thoughts of this brave man, the butchers at the door will not slay my people again.

William R. Hartman is an advisor to Chief Executives and to key members of their teams.
  Based in Reno, he is chairman of four groups for Vistage International, a worldwide
organization of CEOs.  He may be reached at



FREE - Legislative Workshop November 13th


The following is a message from Arizona State Representative, Russell Pearce, about an upcoming
FREE legislative workshop.  We recommend attendance by anyone interested in protecting their





I am excited to tell you about a Legislative Workshop that is being conducted at the Arizona State
Capitol.  It is designed for Arizona citizens to help them understand the procedures and processes
of the legislature.

Topics that will be discussed are:  how a bill is drafted, how a bill moves through the legislature, the
Arizona Legislative Information System (ALIS), the Request to Speak Program and how to more
effectively use the legislative website.


There will be a lot of information provided and an opportunity to ask questions. 


Date:  November 13, 2007

Check in 7:30 AM

Time:  8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon

Location:  Arizona State Capitol - House of Representatives

Parking:  Wesley Bolin Plaza

Cost:  *FREE*


To register** you must purchase  a (FREE)  ticket.  There is no cost.  Go to . There will be a link there to get tickets.  Again, this is
FREE.  Limit 2 tickets per-person.  Please call Eric Johnson at 480-892-5154 if you are disabled and
need assistance with seating.


**For security reasons "walk-ins" or "day of the event" registration will not be allowed.  It is imperative
that registration is completed early.
Registration ends November 5th or until all seats are reserved.


You don't want to miss this opportunity.  We only have a limited number of seats on the House Floor
and in the Gallery so you must register early. 


For additional information and tickets go to

I hope to see you there - Russell


These alerts are a project of the Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL), an all volunteer,
non-profit, non-partisan grassroots organization.  Join today! 


AzCDL - Protecting Your Freedom


Copyright © 2007 Arizona Citizens Defense League, Inc., all rights reserved.


Recently, someone sent me a post that Cindy Sheehan's sonn Casey's grave, is unmarked by a
monument. That is no longer true. Here is my response to it:


Dick & Company -
    While I am NOT defending Cindy Sheehan's deplorable actions, I am a defender of accuracy
and objective reality. While this story below MAY have been true (no marker on Casey's grave)
it is no longer so, according to a reputable source, .
     Please feel free to re-distribute widely. Best also to check with reputable sources before
ever forwarding something like this. It lessens the credibility of online information when you do.
Charles Heller
Liberty Watch Radio
AM 690 Tucson
After three years, and a Dept of Defense payment of $250,000 to the "Peace Mom", Cindy
Sheehan has not had the time or bothered to have a headstone placed on her young hero's
grave. And, she doesn't even have to pay for one, the Dept of Defense will provide one:
"The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) furnishes upon request, at no charge to the applicant,
a government headstone or marker for the grave of any deceased eligible veteran in any cemetery
around the world. For all deaths occurring before September 11, 2001 , the VA may provide a
headstone or marker only for graves that are not marked with a private headstone. Flat markers
in granite, marble, and bronze and upright headstones in granite and marble are available. The
style chosen must be consistent with existing monuments at the place of burial. Niche markers
are also available to mark columbaria used for inurnment of cremated remains."
Apparently she can find time to protest on at least 3 continents, get arrested various times, go
on vacation in Hawaii, have photo ops with the Marxists in Venezuela, but can't seem to find the
time to properly mark her son's grave.   The sob sister who protested the war at Bush's ranch,
who lost her son in the war, the same son she gave up in her divorce when he was
7 years old
is going through another divorce right now and guess what?   She is giving up custody of another


National Border Patrol Council
LOCAL 2544
2410 W Ruthrauff Rd, Suite 100
Tucson, Arizona 85705
Office (520) 293-6008
Facsimile (520) 293-6044

May 24, 2007

Honorable Jon Kyl
United States Senate
730 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-0304
VIA FACSIMILE @ (202) 224-2207

Dear Senator Kyl,

I am writing to inform you that we are extremely surprised and disappointed at your decision to
support the latest Senate bill regarding illegal immigration. No matter how it is presented to the
American people, and no matter how our elected representatives try to spin it and avoid the word
"amnesty", the sad fact remains that this bill will provide amnesty to the millions of illegal aliens
who have succeeded in avoiding arrest. Simply put, the bill would forgive illegal aliens for break-
ing our laws and it would make the vast majority of them "legal" residents.

Local 2544, now representing about 2,600 Border Patrol agents in Arizona, endorsed your Senate
bid last year with the clear understanding that you would not support amnesty for illegal aliens.
We feel we have been sold out.

As we all learned from the 1986 amnesty debacle, the simple fact of the matter is that amnesty
does not work
. It simply rewards lawlessness, which naturally encourages more lawlessness.
In this case, it will encourage continued massive illegal immigration. History proves this. We leg-
alized approximately 3 million illegal aliens pursuant to the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control
Act, and now, 20 years later, we're looking at legalizing 12 to 20 million more? This is disgraceful.
Further, I can tell you from first-hand experience that corruption was absolutely rampant with the
previous amnesty program, and there is no doubt that corruption will be rampant again if a bill with
amnesty attached to it becomes law. Why is it that some politicians naively think that telling a
class of people it is acceptable to ignore our current laws will encourage that same class of people
to obey future laws? Border Patrol agents successfully exposing corruption after the implemen-
tation of the 1986 amnesty program were admonished and ordered to "stand down" (I was one
of those so ordered). We were told that anyone who had applied for, or indicated that they were
going to apply for amnesty, was not to be questioned. The result was that the border became
more chaotic. When illegal aliens were encountered and subsequently released without question-
ing it

emboldened them, and many were engaged in smuggling operations using their "amnesty" status
as a cover for their smuggling activities. The 1986 amnesty program, from a law enforcement
perspective, was nothing short of disastrous. You were a freshman congressman in 1986, and
you should know this. The border is only under marginally better control now than it was then.
In fact, there are areas of the border in which we have less control now because we aren't allowed
to do our jobs effectively. For example, we have burdensome restrictions such as our ridiculous
"vehicle pursuit" policy, whereby we have to back off just about any smuggler in a vehicle who
"exceeds the posted speed limit" (regardless of whether he or she is smuggling illegal aliens,
drugs, weapons, or anything else imaginable). We have geographic areas within this country
that we are ordered to stay away from, for instance, Phoenix, Arizona is full of illegal aliens,
and we aren't allowed to patrol there because our presence may offend someone. These re-
strictions, and others, make it nearly impossible to be effective at times. Anyone who claims
the border currently resembles anything "under control" should explain how it is that millions
of illegal aliens are still managing to sneak in every year. It doesn't add up, no matter how
many public relations ploys some of our top managers dream up to fool the American people.
It's a very simple equation - if the border was "secure" people wouldn't be able to get in unless
they presented themselves legally at a designated port of entry. We are arresting more than 1
million per year, and we lose more than we arrest. Do the math.

Aside from this bill being bad public policy, astronomically expensive for the taxpayers, and
bad for this country's security, I want to assure you that amnesty is a tremendous morale
for frontline Border Patrol agents who are trying to secure this nation's borders against
all odds, and at an ever-increasing risk of personal harm.
We would like any politician, just
once, to explain to us why we risk our lives to keep people out of this country, when
the same people we are trying to keep out will be legalized anyway after they get by
And again, let's be clear, most of them do get by us. We are basically destined to fail before
we ever get started.

This bad habit of rewarding those who successfully break our laws for the sake of political "com-
promise" makes no sense. As a Border Patrol agent who has already seen this fiasco played
out once, I cannot begin to tell you how frustrating it is to try and do the job you were sworn to
do when your entire mission has been sold out on the back end. I am extremely proud to be a 2
1-year veteran Border Patrol agent and I'm proud of the rank-and-file agents I work with. However,
I'm not so proud of some of our politicians and "leaders" within the Border Patrol who seem to
have lost touch with reality. Is there any wonder that we can no longer recruit a sufficient number
of agents to meet hiring goals? We're not even close. Our managers in Washington have become
so desperate that they are now sponsoring a NASCAR team to improve our image, and they are
offering rewards of $1,500 to current employees who recruit new agents. They will call this "thinking
outside the box". We call it desperation. It is not


happenstance that prospective young law enforcement officers are refusing to join the Border Patrol
in the numbers we need. They are heading elsewhere because they see that we have been sold out.
This is not surprising when we work for an Administration more concerned with appeasing the corrupt
Mexican government than supporting the rank-and-file agents it hires to secure our borders. Our
"immigration system" is not necessarily "broken". That's just a convenient excuse (the oft repeated
line "our immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed"). The real problem is that our leaders'
willpower is broken
. We aren't allowed to enforce our laws properly. The country of Mexico is broken.
It needs to be fixed by the citizens it victimizes. Rather than fix the corrupt system they live in, the
Mexican government chooses to export their poverty problems to the United States. It's simple, and
they should be held accountable instead of being coddled, rewarded, and empowered to continue the
abuse of their own citizens.

We hope that you will re-evaluate your position on this disastrous bill and that you will stand up for
this country. We are sorely lacking leadership at multiple levels within our government. Is there
anybody in Washington representing the interests of the American people anymore? How is it that
the will of the vast majority of Americans is continuously ignored? Elected representatives are sup-
posed to perform the business of the American people.

This new amnesty scheme simply will not work. We have already seen the chest thumping and the
empty promises of "tough enforcement" that is supposed to make amnesty more palatable to Amer-
icans. Unfortunately, reality and history dictate that these measures are long on amnesty, short on
enforcement, and ultimately, bad for the American people.


Edward Tuffly II
Local 2544
National Border Patrol Council


Souring The Milk Of Illegal Immigration


By Charles Heller



     No matter what side of the isle a person's on, they have to acknowledge we have a problem with illegal immigration. Many, many problems are caused or aggravated by it, from an increase in heretofore-eradicated diseases, to the loss of emergency rooms no longer fiscally capable of the strain, to hit and run accidents by illegals.


     Illegal immigration is not good for those who come here, either, although it is better for them than the places from which they come. Illegals here, are often not in a position to report crimes against them, nor can they file labor complaints. Their journey across the desert, if they come that way, is fraught with danger both from dishonest people, and nature. In short, it's a bad trip for them, and several hundred die a year trying.  No matter what side you're on, we can agree that illegal immigration is a bad thing, but how to solve it?


     There is a wide range of opinion, from "deport them all," to "amnesty them all." Let's look at the simple practicalities of it.


     "Put Troops on the border," some say. Well, we have a Southern border alone that is 1951 miles long. That would take more troops than we have to properly guard, not to mention pulling them from other areas of the world where they are needed. That does not count the Northern border or watching the coasts.


      "Regularize them all," proponents do not understand that many if not most of the people here illegally, are here for money, not citizenship. They either wish to work and send money home, or be a part of the social welfare network of our country. If you can do either without being a citizen, why go through the trouble of being "regularized?"


      "Deport them all," is an option that some of the most hard line people in the debate, espouse. Well, let's look at the practicality of that. There are about 1.2 million police officers in the United States, counting all uniform and non-uniform personnel, including FBI, Secret Service, Customs, Border Patrol, and every other local, state, and federal agency. That means that in any one shift, the very most officers on duty, on a good day are about 275,000. You cannot round up 12 to 20 million people with all those officers, let alone the few agents tasked with it.


     "Fine or imprison the employers who hire the illegals," say some. Well, once again, we have an enforcement personnel shortage problem there, too. There are too many workplaces and job sites in America to police them all. Furthermore, this has the unfortunate consequence of putting employers in a terrible position. They have no effective way of checking, except the Social Security System, if an SSN is matched to the name of a perspective employee. Enforcing against them, would be a placing the de facto burden of enforcement upon the private sector. That is not a good way to run a "public/private partnership," is it?


     "Build the fence," say many. Building a fence is a good idea. Paul Harvey says that, "good fences make for good neighbors." True. A fence is working well in Israel, as well, if we need an example, but it does not address the root cause of why people are coming here, and that is economic incentive. As long as that exists, people will find ways around a fence, through a checkpoint, and beyond their visa time period.


                                  So what to do? Sour the milk!


     The way you get people to not do a thing is to ruin their incentive to do it. It is that simple, though not that easy, to accomplish. People come here for the most part to earn money. They then send massive amounts of that money back to their home country. It is said that Mexico's second largest source of income, after oil, is money sent from abroad by individuals working outside their country. But how do you get people to stop doing what is in their interest to do? There are 6 points to sour the milk of illegal immigration. They are in the areas of money transfer, residence, automatic citizenship, health care, education, and sanctuary policy.


      First, Congress passes a law that is completely within the ambit of their authority: a financial act that makes it illegal to send money out of the United States if a person is not here legally, or assist anyone not here legally in doing so.  How would that work? Choke points.


     Money must pass through certain areas that are monitorable in order to leave the country. People either send funds through a currency exchange, a bank, wire transfer, or post office. It is a simple matter to make sure that each agent transferring money outside the U.S., make sure that a person is here legally in order to make that transfer. It is also a simple matter to have Congress include in that legislation, a requirement that a person be here legally in order to have a bank account, and reject the use of the "Matricula Consular" card, as I.D. That is the main facet of "souring the milk" of illegal immigration.


     Secondly, we sour the milk by impeding residency. As part of the legislation mentioned above from Congress, we make it illegal to rent or sell property to anyone not here legally, or assist anyone who does. We also include a provision that starting 180 days after the law takes effect, anyone found to have property in the U.S. while not here legally, will have it seized via criminal asset forfeiture. And the funds from proceeds of said sale go to building the fence.


     Thirdly, we address the "automatic citizenship" area of concern. The 14th amendment says:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


     Notice that it says "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Mexican citizens are subject to the jurisdiction of Mexico. The fact that they have come here illegally does not make them U.S citizens, neither should it make children of those born to illegals, citizens of the U.S. A law that says, "pursuant to amendment 14, all children born to persons legally in the United States, are citizens of the United States," would mitigate the "anchor baby syndrome."


     In 1986, a law called EMTALA, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, required all hospitals which receive Medicare payments, to treat anyone who comes to them regardless of ability to pay or legal status. Change that law to say that in a life-threatening situation, they must treat, but not in non-life threatening situations if a person is not in the U.S. legally. That ends the unfunded mandate for healthcare for illegals, except in life threatening situations.


    In the fifth place, Congress should enact a law that only requires the education of children legally in the United States. If local jurisdictions chose to educate the children of illegals they may, but no U.S. tax money may go to that purpose. 


     Lastly, Congress needs to pass a law that denies any federal money whatsoever to any city, county, political subdivision, or state, that enacts a "sanctuary" policy in terms of its police, fire, EMT, school, or other system of or within government.


     What these 6 things do, taken together, is make it hard to transact money, get medical treatment for non life-threatening injuries, get education, or a place to live for people who are not here legally. If you remove the economic incentive, how many will still come illegally?


     This still does not address the needs of business that claim that there are jobs "Americans won't do." If that need still exists, it can be handled with an I.D. card, which contains an electronic scan of the temporary worker's fingerprints, retina, and other biometric identifiers, provided that that I.D. is prohibited by law from being used on American Citizens.


     A computer database of jobs, run by a non-profit company, can then be used to match jobs with applicants. It should be required by law that anyone not a citizen, working in the U.S., either has a job before they come to the U.S or a bond if they are coming here to run their own business, and the I.D. to swipe just like a credit card at said employer. A person losing his job or moving to another has 14 days to either get a new one or leave the country, or re-apply for more work through the database.


     The database could be authorized by Congress 18 - 24 months after the border has been secured, and the secretary of homeland security has certified that less than 3,000,000 illegal aliens are within the borders of the United States.

"When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but
because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I
cannot be forced, only persuaded."
 Why the gun is civilization
By Marko
March 23, 2007
 Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and
force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of
either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under
threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two
categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact
through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social
interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the
personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use
reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your
threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that
puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a
75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and
a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with
baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size,
or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. 
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad
force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more
civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes
it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if
the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or
by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's
potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask
for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's
the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one,
can only make a successful living in a society where the state has
granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that
otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in
several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the
physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute
lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out
of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal
force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the
stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the
only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in
the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force
equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but
because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I
cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid,
but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions
of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of
those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and
that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.



May 23, 2007


Contact: Ann Seiden    (602) 334-XXXX


Arizona Chamber Supports Framework of Senate Immigration Compromise

Business community applauds Senator Kyl's leadership on immigration reform


PHOENIX - The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry applauds key bi-partisan leaders in the U.S. Senate for responding to Americans' demand for comprehensive immigration reform. After a thoughtful exchange with Senator Kyl, the Arizona Chamber believes the Senate immigration compromise provides the proper framework for restructuring the flawed U.S. immigration system.


The Arizona business community has consistently advocated that a strong immigration reform proposal should include enhanced border security, a temporary worker program, an accurate and non-discriminatory way to verify work eligibility, and increased availability of work visas. The Senate proposal addresses these essential components and also provides a way to settle the legal status of undocumented immigrants.


"We feel this compromise has a strong foundation. It begins to address the issues necessary for enacting comprehensive immigration reform," says Glenn Hamer, President & CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Mr. Hamer goes on to say, "Like any complex issue, there are details to improve upon and modifications to make. Going forward, we are cautiously optimistic this effort will put us on the road to a true solution."


Senator Kyl received a warm response from members of the business community last Saturday when he spoke to a group of Arizona Chamber members. The Senator said a consistent message he received during the last election was to do something about illegal immigration. Today the Arizona Chamber applauds Senator Kyl for demonstrating tremendous leadership on this critical issue.


Mr. Hamer says, "We look forward to remaining engaged in the process and providing helpful input to improve the final bill. Our thanks go out to Senator Kyl for answering the call to reform and not choosing to stay on the sidelines."



    I have heard NO demand from the public for any such sort of so-called "comprehensive" reform at all. I have heard plenty of clamor for border security, but none at all for "reform," except for our public misservants in elective orifice.


    Bi-partisan? Bi-partisan my tail assembly! Possibly co-violative of oaths of office, but not "bi-partisan."


    Let me lay it out for you in black and white, which is hard to do in an audio format, but I digress: the Rupublicans know that cheap unskilled labor from Mexico keeps the wage rate down. The Democrats know that most of these people will come up here and when they become citizens, vote Democrat. So the R's want the cheap labor and the D's want the cheap votes. It's as simple as that. It is a Demipublican tsunami, come to wash away your money, plain and simple.


    If any of these elected morons would study economics, they would see the natural consequence of their actions. But most of them don't think pas the next election cycle. Why should they, as most Americans today don't think past the next week. That's why we will NEVER have another revelotion in this country as long as there is beer and cable television. But we can stop a silent revolution against our sovereignty and our way of life if enough of us keep the pressure on the Senate, The house of Reprehensitives, and the White-Out House.


    Let me explain. In 1986, one of the big reasons given for immigration reform, which was then known as the Simpson-Mizzoli Act, which gave amnesty to three million people, was that we didn't have the resources to go round up 3 million illegal aliens. Something about fighting some evil empire somewhere, I don't know. But anyway we didn't have the resources to go head em up and move em out.


     The natural economic consequence of that is that you get more of what you subsidize. We waived our magic wand and made 3 million illegals legal, and voila, 20 years later is it any surprise that they have multiplied nearly 10 fold? HELLO!


      What the Arizona Chamber of commerce fails to recognize is WHY we have a "failed immigration system:" WE DON'T INSIST THAT GOVERNMENT FOLOW ITS OWN RULES! If we did, the system wouldn't be failed! But we care more about the price of a head of lettuce than we do about the cost of health care. Why? Short term thinking, just like Congress is practicing right now.


     The current proposal lets somewhere between 12 and 20 million apply for amnesty. The problems with that are many, but one of them would allow them to bring with them 4 family members. That's 48 - 80 million people, people! Hello, is anybody listening???? What are Congresscritters thing? Are they thinking at all???


    Furthermore, the "Z" visa, does not discriminate between countries of origin. That means if a fellow comes here from Indonesia, and just so happens to be a Tamil Tiger, or a guy comes here from Saudi who just happens to be a Wahabbist, overstays his visa or comes in illegally through Mexico, and then files for a "z" visa, government has only 2 days to do a background check on the person. At that point they are granted a provisional, renewable visa, and until they do something WRONG in this country, cannot be deported. There is no distinction whatsoever between some poor Mexican guy who comes here because of the awful oligarchy running Mexico, and an irhabi (they're not jihadi, they're irhabi - terrorists, not holy warriors) who comes here to kill people. None.


     The people who are elected to Congress are not idiots. They may be statists, but they are not idiots. Many are attorneys who have metasticized, but again I digress. Elected officials know EXACTLY what they are doing. They are attempting to open the floodgates to let anybody in, because it increases the tax base. More people = more constituents. More constituents = more empowerment of government, period. More empowerment of government = more money. It's a vicious cycle, folks.


     The Arizona Chamber of Commerce, in the "NEWS" release (since when did they stop making "press" releases and call them news) supports Q "a temporary worker program, an accurate and non-discriminatory way to verify work eligibility, and increased availability of work visas." You want to know why? And no, it's not cheap workers. It is the product of the American public school system.


     Most public school graduates today couldn't find the square root of 9 without a calculator, and think the Gulf of Sidra is a product endorsed by Tiger Woods. If they had to navigate the USS Tucson by map and compass, it would end up beached in IOWA! Many, except those who have been through scouting or ROTC, couldn't locate their rectum without GPS, Tom Tom, their PDA, and a blue tooth enabled speculum! For goodness sakes, look up the State Department website. We have 81 visa programs right now. The answer to this is teaching your children how to read, write, compute, and think critically!


     We are the nation that developed the practical use of the electron microscope (yes I know it was originally a German invention) and the main companies that make them are in the U.S. We are the nation that fought back Nazism and imperialism. We are the nation who developed the use of atomic power, albeit with a bang of a start.


    We are the nation that sets the economic and freedom example of the world. Well we did, anyway, before the PATRIOT Act. We are among a few dozen countries who have a problem with people coming here, not with those wanting to leave. We are capable of producing students that Bill Gates wants to hire, but we won't do it by opening the floodgates of immigration as wide as they will go. We need to go back to pre-1965 levels of immigration, when we COULD control the flow of people who came here, and for the reasons that they were an asset to the country, not primarily that we were an asset to the immigrant, although of course we are.


Glenn Hamer, President & CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry.  Says, Q "We feel this compromise has a strong foundation. It begins to address the issues necessary for enacting comprehensive immigration reform. Like any complex issue, there are details to improve upon and modifications to make. Going forward, we are cautiously optimistic this effort will put us on the road to a true solution."


     Cautiously optimistic???? About what, the coming fluster cluck of our economy? The train wreck this will cause in the so-called Homeland Security Department? We have an 8 year backlog of lawful immigrant applications right now. I have some friends who have been waiting 11 years to hear from them. HELLO! We do not have the manpower to handle the backlog we have now, and this bill does not provide it, either. All it does is QUADRUPLE TO QUINTUPLE the number of applicants, and install a process whereby after two years the homeland security secretary can simply waiver the backlog.


     IDIOTS! I used to call them congresscritters, the official title has now changed to congresscretins, except that that might not be speaking well of cretins.  Former and soon to be guest on this program, Michael Cutler, a 30 year retired INS Agent, points out that when you give an identity document to an unknown person, you are forced to accept his story of where he came from and who he is, without knowing.


      So if Ramsey Yousef from Saudi Arabia or Bosnia comes here and says his name is Menachem Schwartz from Israel, and there really is a Menachem Schwartz somewhere that US Customs and Immigration cannot check, then Ramsey gets a free pass into the country, which he can use to get drivers licenses, credit, and all other forms of regularization. He could even go to court and legally change his name to Ramsey Yousef, making Menachem Schwartz, in effect, disappear! CIS is left holding an empty bag, and we could be left with a guy who has the knowledge and intent to detonate a radiological device here.


      Don't trust me on this, or anything else. Do your own research.Like this, from CIS. Q "According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection apprehension numbers, agents along both borders have caught more than 5,700 special-interest immigrants since 2001. But as many as 20,000 to 60,000 others are presumed to have slipped through, based on rule-of-thumb estimates typically used by homeland security agencies. HELLO! And we want these people out of the shadows so they can have government breeder documents???? McFly, what are you thinking??????


     Back to the Arizona Chamber of Commerce Press release, Q "Senator Kyl received a warm response from members of the business community last Saturday when he spoke to a group of Arizona Chamber members.  WELL GETTINGURINATED ON MIGHT PRODUCE A WARM FEELING, BUT IT WOULD STILL STINK, and so does this bill in the Senate, S. 2611!


    Write them, fax them, and go to their offices here and hand deliver your mail to vote this monster down and out. Jon Kyl's office address is 6840 North Oracle Road, Suite 150 Tucson, and the senior Senator's office is at 407 W. Congress. I suggest several courses of action.

First, if you are a Republican, consider using a very small and non-threatening scissors to cut up your registration card and leave it at the office manager's desk, politely explaining how you won't be needing it anymore. Secondly, send them a piece of chain link fence. Tell them to add your piece to the project, and IF you see them build the whole thing, you will then consider expanding guest worker programs.


     Third, if you are a member of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, consider resigning, and encouraging others you know to do the same. Their addres is
Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry
1850 North Central Avenue
Suite 1010
Phoenix, Arizona 85004

                                     The Servant Government Project


Government is the servant, not the master, in our form of government, but how do we maintain that relationship? Constant vigilance, and constant reminders to the servants that we are the masters. Now how to do that in civility and to good effect? Enter the Servant Government Project.

Next time you pay your water bill to the city or county, instead of making it out to "Water Department," why not make ot payable to, "Servant Government, City of ______."  It is only through constant reminder that these folks will recall that they are menat to be servants, not masters. Would you all be willing to make this small change for a great result?

Even better, you get to educate others. I started doing this only in late 2006, and already the bank tellers where I get my money orders know to address any funds to the Tucson Water Department that way. Got a civil fine to pay? How about "Servant Government at City Court?" Real estate tax? Servant Government at _______ County assessor." Pass it on to someone by whom you want to be loved....



1 May 07

Comments on personal weapons management, from a pilot who is one of our students, currently
stationed in Baghdad:

"I couldn't help but to respond regarding this subject, as I am currently dealing with the same
nonsense.  I am here in the Green Zone as part of an aviation unit.

Base commanders have decreed that there are three condition for personal firearms (rifles and
pistols), Green, Amber, and Red.

While in the Green Zone, personal weapons must be 'Green.'   We would call it 'storage-mode,
' no magazine inserted, empty chamber.  One may carry rifles and pistols and have a charged
magazine or two with him, but they may never be inserted into magazine wells.

'Amber' we would call 'transport-mode.'  Charged magazine inserted, but no round chambered. 
The only ones authorized to carry in Amber are Security Forces, and only when they are actually
working as such.  At all other times, they are expendable peons like the rest of us.

'Red' is what we would call 'carry-mode,' but it is only theoretical, as no one may have a weapon
in that condition.  Weapons are NEVER actually carried in 'Red.'

At the chow hall, Ugandan security guards (who don't speak English) check to ensure holstered
pistols (which are all in storage-mode anyway) have the decocker (the call it a 'safety') down. 
There is a clearing barrel beside the entrance, but one is no longer mandated to 'clear' weapons
upon entering.  Such 'clearing' used to be a requirement, but there were so many NDs, the
more-or-less continuous noise disturbed diners!  In addition, since such NDs automatically give
rise to Article 15 sanctions, too many troopers, after experiencing an ND, would simply drop
their pistol and run away.  Embarrassing!

Since my unit regularly flies over hostile territory, I make it a habit to go 'Red' with my M9
pistol prior to each flight.  Unfortunately, I'm the only one who does!  Other pilots laugh, saying,
"I'll just load it when I need it!"  However, there has never been any training with regard to going
from Amber to Red, so such empty bravado is all theoretical, since they have only talked about
it.  None have ever actually done it!

Well, I recently had to have a chat with my desk-bound Battalion Commander with regard to this
very subject.  He stated that the threat level did not 'justify' having a loaded gun in the cockpit! 
He made it clear that none of us were authorized to "go Red" until we're shot down.  He added, 
'All you have to do is just pull that thing, the "slide, right?, back, right?'  I concluded that no
further discussion was necessary.  I continue to, now surreptitiously, 'go Red' prior to each
flight.  As the Great Philosopher said, 'There is nothing to be gained by arguing with idiots!'

It is truly a sad state of affairs that I'm an officer, wear the uniform, have an issued pistol,
ammunition, magazines, but '... Oh, don't load that gun.  That would be unsafe!'

Back in the States (where I don't draw combat pay) I carry, concealed, a fully-loaded pistol,
just as you taught me, every waking hour, only to arrive in a "Combat Zone,' draw 'combat
pay,' and have to deal with this  insanity!"

Comment: Desk-bound managers (masquerading as "leaders'), who, because they've never
been exposed to competent small-arms training, don't know what they don't know, but
unforgivably, don't want to know what they don't know are smothering real warriors who
want to enlighten others and advance the Art. 

With "leaders" like these, we don't need enemies!

"In this business, you find the enemy, then go after and destroy him.  Everything else is

Eddie Rickenbacker, WWI Flying Ace


Death Squad in Delaware: The Case of the Murdered Marine

by William Norman Grigg
by William Norman Grigg

  He survived Iraq, only to suffer Death By Government in the "Land of the Free": Sgt. Derek J. Hale, USMC, ret. ~ RIP

Delaware was the first state to ratify the U.S. Constitution. It may be the first state to be afflicted with a fully operational death squad - unless a civil lawsuit filed on Friday against the murders of Derek J. Hale results in criminal charges and a complete lustration (in the Eastern European sense of the term) of Delaware's law enforcement establishment.

Hale, a retired Marine Sergeant who served two tours in Iraq and was decorated before his combat-related medical discharge in January 2006, was murdered by a heavily armed 8-12-member undercover police team in Wilmington, Delaware last November 6. He had come to Wilmington from his home in Manassas, Virginia to participate in a Toys for Tots event.

Derek was house-sitting for a friend on the day he was murdered. Sandra Lopez, the ex-wife of Derek's friend, arrived with an 11-year-old son and a 6-year-old daughter just shortly before the police showed up. After helping Sandra and her children remove some of their personal belongings, Derek was sitting placidly on the front step, clad in jeans and a hooded sweatshirt, when an unmarked police car and a blacked-out SUV arrived and disgorged their murderous cargo.

Unknown to Derek, he had been under police surveillance as part of a ginned-up investigation into the Pagan Motorcycle Club, which he had joined several months before; the Pagans sponsored the "Toys for Tots Run" that had brought Derek to Delaware. As with any biker club, the Pagans probably included some disreputable people in their ranks. Derek was emphatically not one of them.

In addition to his honorable military service (albeit in a consummately dishonorable war), Derek's personal background was antiseptically clean. He had a concealed carry permit in Virginia, which would not have been issued to him if he'd been convicted of a felony, a narcotics or domestic violence charge, or had any record of substance abuse or mental illness.

On the day he was killed, Derek had been under both physical and electronic (and, according to the civil complaint, illegal) surveillance. Police personnel who observed him knew that his behavior was completely innocuous. And despite the fact that he had done nothing to warrant such treatment, he was considered an "un-indicted co-conspirator" in a purported narcotics ring run by the Pagans.

The police vehicles screeched to a halt in front of the house shortly after 4:00 p.m. They ordered Lopez and her children away from Derek - who, predictably, had risen to his feet by this time - and then ordered him to remove his hands from his the pockets of his sweatshirt.

Less than a second later - according to several eyewitnesses at the scene - Derek was hit with a taser blast that knocked him sideways and sent him into convulsions. His right hand involuntarily shot out of its pocket, clenching spasmodically.

"Not in front of the kids," Derek gasped, as he tried to force his body to cooperate. "Get the kids out of here."

The officers continued to order Derek to put up his hands; he was physically unable to comply.

So they tased him again. This time he was driven to his side and vomited into a nearby flower bed.

Howard Mixon, a contractor who had been working nearby, couldn't abide the spectacle.

"That's not necessary!" he bellowed at the assailants. "That's overkill! That's overkill!"

At this point, one of the heroes in blue (or, in this case, black) swaggered over to Mixon and snarled, "I'll f*****g show you overkill!" Having heroically shut up an unarmed civilian, the officer turned his attention back to Derek - who was being tased yet again.

"I'm trying to get my hands out," Derek exclaimed, desperately trying to make his tortured and traumatized body obey his will. Horrified, his friend Sandra screamed at the officers: "He is trying to get his hands out, he cannot get his hands out!"

Having established that Derek - an innocent man who had survived two tours of duty in Iraq - was defenseless, one of Wilmington's Finest closed in for the kill.

Lt. William Brown of the Wilmington Police Department, who was close enough to seize and handcuff the helpless victim, instead shot him in the chest at point-blank range, tearing apart his vitals with three .40-caliber rounds. He did this after Derek had said, repeatedly and explicitly, that he was trying to cooperate. He did this despite the fact that witnesses on the scene had confirmed that Derek was trying to cooperate. He did this in front of a traumatized mother and two horrified children.

Why was this done?

According to Sgt. Steven Elliot of the WPD, Brown slaughtered Derek Hale because he "feared for the safety of his fellow officers and believed that the suspect was in a position to pose an imminent threat." That subjective belief was sufficient justification to use "deadly force," according to Sgt. Elliot.

The "position" Derek was in, remember, was that of wallowing helplessly in his own vomit, trying to overcome the cumulative effects of three completely unjustified Taser attacks.

When asked by the Wilmington News Journal last week if Hale had ever threatened the officers - remember, there were at least 8 and as many as 12 of them - Elliot replied: "In a sense, [he threatened the officers] when he did not comply with their commands."

He wasn't given a chance to comply: He was hit with the first Taser strike less than a second after he was commanded to remove his hands from his pockets, and then two more in rapid succession. The killing took roughly three minutes.

As is always the case when agents of the State murder an innocent person, the WPD immediately went into cover-up mode. The initial account of the police murder claimed that Derek had "struggled with undercover Wilmington vice officers"; that "struggle," of course, referred to Derek's involuntary reaction to multiple, unjustified Taser strikes.

The account likewise mentioned that police recovered "two items that were considered weapons" from Derek's body. Neither was a firearm. One was a container of pepper spray. The other was a switchblade knife. Both were most likely planted on the murder victim: The police on the scene had pepper spray, and Derek's stepbrother, Missouri resident Jason Singleton, insists that Derek never carried a switchblade.

"The last time I saw Derek," Jason told the News Journal, "he had a small Swiss Army knife. I've never seen Derek with anything like a switchblade."

Within hours, the WPD began to fabricate a back-story to justify Derek's murder. Several Delware State Police officers - identified in the suit (.pdf) as "Lt. [Patrick] Ogden, Sgt. Randall Hunt, and other individual DSP [personnel]" contacted the police in Masassas, Virginia and informed him that Derek had been charged with drug trafficking two days before he was murdered. This was untrue. But because it was said by someone invested with the majestic power of the State, it was accepted as true, and cited in a sworn affidavit to secure a warrant to search Derek's home.

Conducting this spurious search - which was, remember, play-acting in the service of a cover story - meant shoving aside Derek's grieving widow, Elaine, and her two shattered children, who had just lost their stepfather. Nothing of material consequence was found, but a useful bit of embroidery was added to the cover story.

Less than two weeks earlier, Derek and Elaine had celebrated their first anniversary.

The Delaware State Police officer is guilty of misprision of perjury, as are the officials who collaborated in this deception. And it's entirely likely that the Virginia State Police had guilty knowledge as well.

Last November 21, in an attempt to pre-empt public outrage, the highest officials of the Delaware State Police issued a press release in conjunction with their counterparts from Virginia. The statement is a work of unalloyed mendacity.

"Hale resisted arrest and was shot and killed by Wilmington Police on November 6, 2006," lied the signatories with reference to the claim that he "resisted." "Hale was at the center of a long term narcotics trafficking investigation which is still ongoing."

As we've seen, Hale did not resist arrest, as everyone on the scene knew. And he was not at the "center" of any investigation; before his posthumous promotion to "un-indicted co-conspirator," he was merely a "person of interest" because of his affiliation with a motorcycle club.

Most critically, the statement - which bears the august imprimatur of both the Delaware and Virginia State Police departments, remember - asserts: "Both [State Police] Superintendents have confirmed that there was never any false information exchanged by either agency in the investigation of Derek J. Hale, or transmitted between the agencies in order to obtain the search warrant."

This was another lie.

"Delaware State Police spokesperson Sgt. Melissa Zebley conceded last week that no arrest warrant for Hale was ever issued," reported the News Journal on March 22. Three days after Hale was murdered, police arrested 12 members of the Pagans Motorcycle Club on various drug and weapons charges, but identified Hale at that point only as a "person of interest."

Last Friday (May 23), the Rutherford Institute - one of the precious few nominally conservative activist groups that gives half a damn about individual liberty - and a private law firm in Virginia filed a civil rights lawsuit against several Delaware law enforcement and political officials on behalf of Derek's widow and parents. They really should consider including key officials from the Virginia State Police in the suit, as well.

Those who persist in fetishizing local police - who are, at this point, merely local franchises of a unitary, militarized, Homeland Security apparatus - should ponder this atrocity long and hard.

They should contemplate not only the inexplicable eagerness of Lt. William Brown to kill a helpless, paralyzed pseudo-suspect, but also the practiced ease with which the police establishments of two states collaborated in confecting a fiction to cover up that crime.

According to the lawsuit, Lt. Brown, Derek's murderer, "has violated the constitutional rights of others in the past through the improper use of deadly force and has coached other WPD officers on how to lie about and/or justify the improper use of deadly force." Rather than being cashiered, Brown was promoted - just as one would expect of any other dishonest, cowardly thug in the service of any other Third World death squad.

Derek J. Hale survived two tours of duty in Iraq, a country teeming with Pentagon-trained death squads, only to be murdered by their home-grown equivalent.

March 29, 2007

William Norman Grigg [send him mail] writes the Pro Libertate blog.

Copyright © 2007 William Norman Grigg

Thomas Jefferson & Muslims


What Thomas Jefferson learned from the Muslim book of jihad
By Ted Sampley
 U.S.  Veteran Dispatch
January 2007


Democrat Keith Ellison is now officially the first Muslim United States congressman. True to his pledge, he placed his hand on the Quran, the Muslim book of jihad and pledged his allegiance to the United States during his ceremonial swearing-in. Capitol Hill staff said Ellison's swearing-in photo opportunity drew more media than they had ever seen in the history of the U.S. House. Ellison represents the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota.


The Quran Ellison used was no ordinary book. It once belonged to Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and one of America 's founding fathers.  Ellison borrowed it from the Rare Book Section of the Library of  Congress. It was one of the 6,500 Jefferson books archived in the library. Ellison, who was born in Detroit and converted to Islam while in college, said he chose to use Jefferson's Quran because it showed that "a visionary like Jefferson " believed that wisdom could be gleaned from many sources.


There is no doubt Ellison was right about Jefferson believing wisdom could be "gleaned" from the Muslim Quran. At the time Jefferson owned the book, he needed to know everything possible about Muslims because he was about to advocate war against the Islamic "Barbary" states of Morocco , Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli. Ellison's use of Jefferson's Quran as a prop illuminates a subject once well-known in the history of the United States, but, which today, is mostly forgotten - the Muslim  pirate slavers who over many centuries enslaved  millions of Africans and tens of thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans in the Islamic "Barbary" states.


Over the course of 10 centuries, Muslim pirates cruised the African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and seizing slaves. The taking of slaves in pre-dawn raids on unsuspecting coastal villages had a high casualty rate. It was typical of Muslim raiders to kill off as many of the "non-Muslim" older men and women as possible so the preferred "booty" of only young women and children could be collected. Young non-Muslim women were targeted because of their value as concubines in Islamic markets. Islamic law provides for the sexual interests of Muslim men by allowing them to take as many as four wives at one time and to have as many concubines as their fortunes allow.


Boys, as young as 9 or 10 years old, were often mutilated to create eunuchs who would bring higher prices in the slave markets of the Middle East . Muslim slave traders created "eunuch stations" along major African slave routes so the necessary surgery could be performed. It was estimated that only a small number of the boys subjected to the mutilation survived after the surgery.


When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the "Dey of Algiers "--an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria.


Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations. Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors. Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again.


Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled  "through the medium of war." He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy.


In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Dey of Algiers" ambassador to Britain. The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote to appease.


During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts. In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."   Sound familiar?


For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800. Not long after Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Declaring that America was going to spend "millions for defense but not one cent for tribute,"

Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America 's best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast . The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid all saw action.

In 1805, American Marines marched across the dessert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves. During the Jefferson administration, the Muslim Barbary States, crumbling as a result of intense American naval bombardment and on shore raids by Marines, finally officially agreed to abandon slavery and piracy.


Jefferson's victory over the Muslims lives on today in the Marine Hymn, with the line, "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli , we will fight our country's battles on the land as on the sea." It wasn't until1815 that the problem was fully settled by the total defeat of all the Muslim slave trading pirates. Jefferson had been right.


The "medium of war" was the only way to put and end to the Muslim problem. Mr. Ellison was right about Jefferson .He was a "visionary" wise enough to read and learn about the enemy from their own Muslim book of jihad.


Thomas J. Fay

3 5 07 Letter to Editor, Eugene, Or. Register-Guard:


Dear Editor -


    I'd like to respond to the opinion piece in your 3/4/07 Opinion Section about Jim Zumbo. My perspective is one from a firearms instructor certified by the State of Arizona to teach our concealed weapons permit program for the last 13 years, and as the host of a syndicated radio firearms program for 5 years.


    Mr. Zumbo, suggested that a person is a terrorist because of the class and caliber of weapon he chooses to use in a lawful way.  Please understand, all semi-automatic guns have a similar result of function: they are self re-loading. What Mr. Zumbo is essentially saying is that the color and shape of the rifle makes one a terrorist. What  Mr. Zumbo did, in attempting to divide people by color and shape of weapon they use to hunt, is nothing short of racist.


     The response from the pro-freedom side of the ledger was neither stunning nor surprising. The uproar against Mr. Zumbo was both proportional, and appropriate. Racism against people because they carry black guns, is no better than against black men.


   The First Amendment is a prohibition against prior restraint of speech by government. What it does not do, is shield one from the consequences of such hateful sentiment as Mr. Zumbo expressed. The man dug his own hole. Why decry the fact that he then fell into it?



Charles F. Heller
Liberty Watch Radio Network
7311 E. Brooks Dr.
Tucson, Az. 85730
520 870 2700


226 words
permission to print as is, granted


He got zumboed

A Register-Guard Editorial

Published: Sunday, March 4, 2007 of Form

Listen up, ladies and gentlemen. The Word of the Day is "zumbo." It can be either a verb or a noun.

As a verb, "to zumbo" means to annihilate the reputation of anyone who suggests that there is any class of firearm that doesn't directly contribute to the preservation of American liberty. As anoun, a zumbo is someone who commits professional suicide by saying something that angers the "pry my gun from my cold dead fingers" Second Amendment shock troops.

This colorful contribution to the lexicon of gun politics comes courtesy of Jim Zumbo, who until a couple of weeks ago was one of the most respected outdoor writers and big game hunting advoc-ates in the nation. A 40-year member of the National Rifle Association with a top-rated weekly TV program on the Outdoor Channel, Zumbo was on a coyote hunt in Wyoming sponsored by Remington Arms when he shot his career in the heart.

Upon learning from one of the guides that semi-automatic military-style rifles based on M-16s and AK-47s were commonly used to hunt coyotes and prairie dogs, Zumbo - a traditionalist when it comes to hunting weapons - decided to take issue with the practice on his Outdoor Life-sponsored blog. He posted this passage, which, faster than a speeding bullet, transformed
his last name into a new word:

"I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. As hunters, we don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them. ... I'll go so far as to call them 'terrorist' rifles."

Bang! The response from the owners of such weapons was astonishing in its fury. More than

 6,000 e-mails barraged the Outdoor Life Web site demanding that Zumbo be fired. Seeing the handwriting on the wall, Zumbo resigned. Sponsors immediately deserted Zumbo's TV show, which hasn't been on the air since.

But hell hath no fury like an assault rifle owner scorned, and they weren't finished zumboing Zumbo yet. The NRA jumped into the ring like an outlaw tag-team wrestler. It suspended all ties with Zumbo and alerted its minions in Congress to pay close attention to Zumbo's fate.

A threatened boycott of Remington Arms, a longtime Zumbo sponsor, produced an instant divorce. Zumbo apologized profusely and promised to go hunting immediately with an assault rifle, but nothing short of his professional ruin would appease the incensed gun owners. It looksas if they have succeeded.

The losers lost more than the winners won in this ugly episode. Print and broadcast outlets that should have stood behind Zumbo based on clear First Amendment principles allowed themselves to be brow-beaten by a Second Amendment lynch mob. So much for protecting the Constitution.


Pelosi Targets Grassroots Freedom of Speech

by Amanda B. Carpenter
Posted Dec 18, 2006


House Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) has pledged to take up a lobbying reform proposal that would impose new regulations on speech by grassroots organizations, while providing a loophole in the rules for large corporations and labor unions.

The legislation would make changes to the legal definition of "grassroots lobbying" and require any organization that encourages 500 or more members of the general public to contact their elected representatives to file a report with detailed information about their organization to the government on a quarterly basis.

The report would include identifying the organization's expenditures, the issues focused on and the members of Congress and other federal officials who are the subject of the advocacy efforts. A separate report would be required for each policy issue the group is active on.

"Right now, grassroots groups don't have to report at all if they are communicating with the public," said Dick Dingman of the Free Speech Coalition, Inc. "This is an effort that would become a major attack on the 1st Amendment."

Under the bill, communications aimed at an organization's members, employees, officers or shareholders would be exempt from the reporting requirement. That would effectively exempt most corporations, trade associations and unions from the reporting requirements?but not most conservative grassroots groups, which frequently are less formally organized.

Larger, well-funded organizations are also currently eligible for a "low-dollar lobbyist exemption" that Pelosi's bill does not give to grassroots organizations. If an organization retains a lobbyist to contact lawmakers directly at a cost of $2,500 per quarter or less, or employs a full-time lobbyist at a cost of $10,000 per quarter or less, the organization does not have to report to the government.

Public Citizen, a liberal "government watchdog," is taking credit for helping Pelosi craft the legislation and expects the final draft of the bill to closely resemble Pelosi's Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2006, which contains these provisions.

Craig Holman, a lobbyist for Public Citizen, said the changes would help "streamline" how grassroots organizations are regulated by the IRS and other laws. Public Citizen would like Congress to adopt the IRS's definition of "lobbying," which includes communication that encourages the general public to contact a member of Congress on pending legislation or public policy.

"The IRS has a definition that requires all organizations, including non-profits, to file as a part of our tax returns," Holman said. "When it comes to the election code and the lobbying disclosure act, they have no definition of grassroots lobbying. It's excluded from everything. The IRS has a definition of grassroots lobbying, but their information is not publicly reported. It's just our tax returns to the IRS."

Suzanne Coffman, director of communication for, which makes IRS 990 forms available on the Internet, said any secular, non-profit organization that has more than $25,000 in income per year is required by law to make the last three years worth of tax forms available upon request. "We get them directly from the IRS, and we have more than two million 990s online" said Coffman. "For non-charitable organizations, like private charities or private foundations, we have fewer because the IRS began scanning those only in April 2005. They focused on charitable organizations, which make up the bulk of exempt organizations, because those are the ones that accept tax-deductible contributions. The need for accountability is much higher with them than with other types of organizations which are sort of subsidized by the taxpayer because they federally are tax exempt, but not like a charity is."

Public Citizen's public IRS 990 disclosure forms show that it raised more than $3 million in 2005. That year, the group spent $297, 431 on mail and $178,182 on consulting and professional fees.

A coalition of grassroots organizers, including David Keene of the American Conservative Union, Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America and Terrence Scanlon of the Capitol Research Center, have written an open letter calling on Public Citizen to renounce its efforts, which they called "flawed to the point of hypocrisy."

"This bill would apply to those who have no Washington-based lobbyists, who provide no money or gifts to members of Congress, and who merely seek to speak, associate and petition the government," it said. "Regulating the speech, publishing, association and petitioning rights of citizens is not targeted at corruption in Washington, as Public Citizen and its supporters would believe. Instead, it is targeted directly at the 1st-Amendment rights of citizens and their voluntary associations."

The Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act, which made some of these changes, was actually approved by both the House and the Senate in the 109th Congress, but failed to make it through a conference committee.

To help dramatize the bill this time around, Pelosi is planning to assign sponsorship of various amendments to incoming freshman, which they will promote in their maiden House floor speeches.

Current law prevents former members of Congress and senior staff as well as senior executive staff from lobbying for one year. Pelosi's proposal would extend that to two years and completely ban members and staff from accepting gifts, meals and privately sponsored travel.

Miss Carpenter is Assistant Editor for HUMAN EVENTS. She is the author of "The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy's Dossier on Hillary Rodham Clinton," published by Regnery (a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).


I pack when I eat
And I pack when I sleep
I pack when I groom
And when washing my feet.

My gun is with me
Both day and night
For defending my life
In both darkness and light.

I pack when Im happy
Or angy or sad.
When elated or miserable,
Dumbfounded or glad.

I pack when I talk,
Protest or debate,
And in neighborly chats
Oer the fences grate.
With people I love
And with people I hate.

Im never disarmed wherever I go
I'll carry my gun and go with the flow
some say some places merit self imposed bans
but I'm too old and fat to defend with my hands.
To those who object I give not a care
tis my life at stake, so Im always prepared,
And though I look funny I'm not really that weird.

The Cat in the Holster

Intimidating the "Infidel"

The Fifth Column Howard Linett
October 19, 2006

Actually it is the "Infidel" that should be intimidating. Infidel is the name given to an automatic knife manufactured by my good friends at the Benchmade Knife Company of Oregon City, Oregon. Benchmade has been around since 1988. Many, myself included, consider the company America's premier maker of automatic knifes, which are folding knives that open mechanically - by pushing a button, rather than manually - by using one's thumb. Because all but one or two States prohibit the possession and carrying of automatic knives, sometimes referred to as "Switchblades," such knives are produced almost exclusively for use by police, military and sworn security personnel.

Earlier this year Benchmade introduced the Infidel. A new, modern version of an older design concept, it is an "out-the-front, duel-action automatic." Push the Infidel's "button" (pun intended) forward and a double-edged blade springs out the front of the knife. Push the button rearward and the blade springs back inside the knife. I have tested the Infidel. You really need to push the button, hard, deliberately, because the knife has no "safety." Clearly that is a precaution Benchmade built-in to prevent the knife accidentally activating while in one's pocket.Ouch!

Benchmade hit-the-ground-running when America was attacked on 9/11, working tirelessly ever since to supply the women and men protecting us, our country and our freedom with knives upon which they can rely. Well a couple of months ago Benchmade became even more involved in the War on Terrorism, but this time as an "attackee." It is something that could be visited upon any of us.

In his column from the last week of this September, Daniel Pipes astutely concluded that we are being subjected to a "prolonged campaign of intimidation," backed by aggression and violence, sending a basic message to us. Mr. Pipes went on to accurately identify the message - "You Westerners no longer have the privilege to say what you want about Islam, the Prophet and the Koran." That column was instructionally titled, ?Islamic law rules you, too.'

"Intimidation is an especially nasty, often effective tool. Incitement is intimidation's enforcer. It is vital that everyone understand and identify intimidation and incitement."

I believe the war with terrorism is actually a clash of civilizations. It is a war being waged aggressively against Western Democracies by those whose goal is to replace our freedom with Islamic law and rule. In this war our enemies try to kill us using whatever weapons they can acquire. We are familiar with our enemy's successes and attempts against our person. But the terrorists' efforts to defeat us go far beyond simply using edged weapons, firearms, explosives, poison and weapons of mass destruction to kill us. Our enemies also seek to defeat us by killing our way of life, by preventing us from exercising our freedoms.

Killing our exercise of our Right to Free Speech is both a tactical objective and a strategic goal of the terrorists. Our enemy's position is clear. Only a Moslem may voice an opinion about anything Islamic, anything from an idea to even a single word contained in any Islamic text or oral tradition. No one else may say anything. There can be no other side to any discussion, since there is no discussion. We can not even use words in common parlance, given a word's universally accepted meaning, if suddenly someone somehow decides that the word or the context in which it is used is now unacceptable. Using misinformation and malice to form that "Opinion of Objectability to Islam" or simply reaching the same conclusion out of ignorance is perfectly acceptable.

Thus we return to the Benchmade Knife Company. Have you figured-out the puzzle I now pose? What sin did my friends commit? What Commandment did they transgress, that they deserved to have been singled-out for castigation (which often precedes worse acts of retribution) by a Moslem writing an item on a Blog? They named their knife Infidel. Hell's Bells, what a wonderful example that makes my point so easy to prove.

Look-up the word "infidel" in any dictionary, in any language. Ask someone who speaks Arabic or an Arabic linguist (I did) or a scholar of Islamic history what the word means. The answer will be universal - "Non-Believer." There is no negative connotation, except of course when the term is applied to me. I do not see the inciter's problem. Those individuals I consulted, schooled in the Arabic language and the history of Islam, failed as well to see the insult, the bigotry in using the word as a name for a knife.

I could be wrong. Somehow, in some way I, a liberal Jew from Connecticut can not grasp, using Infidel for the name of a knife might be a form of bigotry aimed at Moslems. Perhaps the man offended by the naming is not in error in his understanding of the word, its meaning, usage and historical context. Let us imagine he has not turned the word on its head. The use of the word nevertheless constitutes Benchmade's legitimate exercise of Free Speech. But we are to sweep Free Speech aside because that speech, in one man's opinion, is insulting to his religious beliefs. Are religion, religious beliefs and religious subjects now to be "off-limits," subjects that are taboo never to be mentioned, forbidden to discuss? Free Speech is easily chilled.

Intimidation is an especially nasty, often effective tool. Incitement is intimidation's enforcer. It is vital that everyone understand and identify intimidation and incitement. You can not effectively combat and defeat what you do not understand and can not identify.

Howard Linett is an attorney, an independent journalist, a lecturer, sniper instructor in the Israeli Police Civil Guard and the author of "Living With Terrorism: Survival Lessons from the Streets of Jerusalem."


3 Oct 06

Grasseaters in high places:

"As an experienced, oil-field technician, I volunteered to be a part of a team sent to Iraq last year, in an effort to get the local oil-producing infrastructure back on line.  As civilian employees of the Army, we were all told directly that, while there, we would be issued, and allowed to carry, a pistol. When we arrived, we discovered that we had been lied to!  We were subsequently informed that the 'general' (never did find out which one)  had decided that civilian employees would not be armed, at any time, in his  domain.  Naturally, we all ignored his pompous, half-witted 'order,' acquired guns, ammunition, holsters, and blades (all locally), and carried them, concealed, all the time we were there.

When I finally asked our JAG why we were (ostensibly) unarmed in a zone of active fighting, he thoughtlessly dismissed my question with the comment that we were not 'trained in such things.' Not willing to let it go, I offered to challenge him personally and beat him, hands-down, at any pistol course he could name.  He suddenly discovered he was needed elsewhere and abruptly turned and walked away, never answering my question.  I later checked for myself and learned that the carrying of defensive weapons by forward-deployed civilians is in full keeping with both the laws of land warfare and US Army tradition.

I guess I was not prepared to believe that our own military management  (the term 'leadership' does not apply) declines to attach any value to our lives!  When we're killed or kidnapped, they must figure they can always hire more!

Not surprisingly, those of us who initially volunteered have all declined a second tour, denying the Army our immense, collective experience and knowledge.  I love my country, but I don't enjoy working for people who care nothing for my personal safety, even my very life!'

Comment: The American military's ghoulish fear of guns (and people carrying them) creates yet another needless, pointless defect in the War effort.   The Republic cannot long endure at this rate!


3 Oct 06

School Shootings:

Why is it that sociopaths, when they get the urge to harm the innocent, select places where, when they arrive in possession of a gun, they know they will be the only one there so equipped?  Why don't "school shooters" ply their trade at the local police headquarters or at commercial gun retailers?  Could it be that they know full well most people in those places will be armed?  Sociopaths may be demoniac, but they're not fools!  In Israel, all teachers and school officials are continuously armed. 
Curious that we don't hear of school shootings there, do we?

We've all heard of the "separation of church and state," but public schools in America have no compunction about advocating religion, the faith of "Learned Helplessness."  In public education, personal initiative, personal courage and boldness, and personal achievement are all discouraged and punished as "aberrant behavior."  What is relentlessly nurtured, encouraged, and rewarded is (1) personal helplessness, (2) victimhood, and (3) cowardice.   American children are taught, from infancy, that even occasionally wanting some capacity for independent action is unthinkable.  Rather, being a "good victim" is one's ultimate expression of patriotism.  In fact, we learn that the government won't even like you until/unless you are a victim (and remain one your entire life).

When they leave school, American youth discover that "learned helplessness" had mutated into "enforced helplessness."  Personal ownership of guns, for example, while not strictly illegal in some places (though leftist politicians are doing their best to correct that), is still publicly discouraged, in every conceivable way and at every level.  Gun owners are marginalized by
government and media alike as deviant and unpatriotic.

In Israel, where things are even more exciting than they are here, society has long-since come to their senses with regard to personal security.   There, they know where there are gatherings of innocent children, there must also be responsible adults who are armed.  They also know and understand that most of those responsible adults will not be police officers.  The vast majority are armed citizens, who don't think "being a good victim" is in their, or their nation's, best interest.

Additional video cameras, additional reams of "procedures," and additional media hand-wringing will not provide protection for innocent children.   Armed teachers, parents, and school officials will. When, as a nation, we stop worshiping at the feet of the false god of "Learned Helplessness," we will collectively see the wisdom of really, physically protecting children, not just continuing to wallow in self-deception.

Several years ago, my friend and colleague, Mas Ayoob, suggested training and arming teachers as they only real way to protect innocent children in schools.  He was instantly denigrated by the media, and even some in our own camp, for even suggesting such a preposterous thing.  As always, he was ahead of his time!


5 Oct 06

Comments on school security, from a friend in Israel:

"I am attending classes locally.  All school administrators and most teachers wear pistols, neatly cased in holsters on their waists.  They are all plainly visible.  The practice actually has a calming effect!   Everyone knows the school administration takes active protection of students seriously, not just with lip service, but with substantive action."

Comment:  There are two kinds of pain: The pain of discipline, or the pain of regret.  We can avoid one, but not both!


6 Oct 06

Play and Players:

Poker journalist, Roy West, puts it well:

"When you find yourself playing with clueless lightweights, be neither astonished nor upset when they play like idiots!"

He goes on:

"Poor players don't recognize skillful play.  Competent players will gracefully get out of the way when they are supposed to.  Poor players don't know when they're supposed to!  Yes, competent players beat poor players, in the long run, but anyone, at any time, can get good cards,"

...or a lucky shot!

Similarly, competent gunmen are more than a match for the typical, clueless, gun-wielding hamburger.  But, even idiots can get lucky, and, unlike the case at the poker table, you may not live long enough to test your theory at the next game!

When they represent a lethal threat, VCAs need to be taken out, instantly, ruthlessly, and with all the skill your can summon, as if they were skilled gunmen, not the buffoons they usually are.  Yes, they are probably unskilled and incompetent, but, like the poor card player, they can still be extremely dangerous.  Give them an edge at your peril.

When confronting David, Goliath, towering over him, paused and snickered.  It was a fatal mistake! David took advantage of the gap Goliath created for himself.  Goliath didn't get a second chance.  You won't either!


 The National Animal Identification Sysytem must be stopped!

Folks, this is one of the most serious issues we have faced.   It has to be stopped at state level.  It is through the USDA and is not legislated.
Bob Parker is from Missouri - but EVERY STATE is facing this battle.  Vermont has stopped it - Missouri will no doubt get it stopped. Texas is working hard but in Illinois there is a grave silence except for the farm publications PUSHING IT on behalf of Cattlemen's Assn., Pork Producers and Farm Bureau  - but not grass roots.  These organizations see gold at the end of the rainbow as they will be handling the data - with no doubt a very nice monetary reward.....but where does that leave the small producer, horseman, 4-H and FFA projects?
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Parker
 For immediate release;
Permission given to submit to publications or make and distribute copies of this letter. 
Contact information; Bob Parker   417-457-6111



To the Editor


  Most of us small farmers are just finding out about the National Animal Identification plan or NAIS as it is being called. I'm referring to the USDA draft plan which can be seen on the USDA website along with the technical supplement that describes the computer coding and requirements of reporting and such. When you read it, you realize what Farm Bureau has planned for all of our horses, cattle and sheep, 27 species of animals in all.


 Our animals are to be micro-chipped, processed, computerized, and verified. They are to be reported when they are born, sold, die, and relocated, all within 24 hours of the ''event.'' There is even a code for turning in your neighbor if you see he isn't complying with the program! Every time you trail-ride with your friends you are required to report where you went. Think I'm kidding? Read the plan. We have yet to be told the cost of the tags, databases, tag readers, computers and computer programs. How many people do you think will be required to handle the data on all of this information? 


 This ID plan begins as a ''Voluntary'' system and then moves to ''mandatory, with enforcement''. Several states have already gone mandatory with animal ID. The first step is the registering of your ''Premise'' and getting a premise number. In January of 2008 all animals will be required to be electronically ID'd, and in January 2009, all movements of such animals will be mandatory according to the plan. Secretary of Agriculture Johannes said in his April 6, 2006 teleconference that this system wouldn't need to be made mandatory if 100% of livestock owners comply with every piece of this draft plan. He also claims that he has been authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill to implement a mandatory system and that no further votes or congressional action are required to make this system mandatory! You can read this on the USDA site also. Click on the news conferences link.


 Where did this come from you ask? Because of 911? Terrorists? Disease control? In 1994 there was an organization called the Livestock Conservation Institute, or LCI. This meeting was attended by Ken Olson from American Farm Bureau, Beth Lautner, National Pork Producers Council, Neil Hammerschmidt, Holstein Association and currently the number two man in USDA, also Fred Bower, International Llama Registry, Chuck Sattler, National Association of Animal Breeders, also eartag and electronics manufactures Magtag, Allflex, Trace-em, as well as the USDA, starring John Weimers, and others. Ninety percent of those present said they wanted a national Identification system for economic reasons. The transcripts of this meeting show that it was determined at that time that the system must be mandatory, it must be standardized, it must be computer chips, and it must be a unique number for each animal. Remember, this was 1994!


 This organization was later re-named the NIAA, the National Institute of Animal Agriculture [] NIAA's membership includes 13 state Farm Bureau Associations, American Farm Bureau, The American Association of Equine Practitioners, American Horse Council, as well as Cargill, Elanco, DFA, Monsanto, Pfizer, Schering-Plough Animal Health.


 The membership also includes the USDA,  American Veterinary Medical Association, Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges, Livestock Marketing Association, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, and numerous state departments of Agriculture.


 Additionally, the following ear tag and electronics manufactures are members, Allflex USA, Inc, Bloodhound Animal Identification Systems, Digital Angel and Electronics ID Inc, E-merge Interactive, Inc, EZ ID Systems, National Brand and Tag company, Optibrand Ltd.,LLC, Science Applications International Corporation, the list goes on and on. [See the full list on their website.] As you can see this is a real cozy club of the big Ag organizations, big corporate interests, and the regulators. Where were the small producers at these meetings?


  As you can see, the agencies have conspired together when they developed this system. Millions of dollars are currently being handed out to animal organizations across the country promising big bucks for handling the data bases. Don't be fooled when they tell you this isn't so. The draft plan was entered into the Federal Register and has never been replaced or removed. Ask for documentation from those that disagree with what I have said here. Ask them what they are basing their statements on.


 After several public meetings in Missouri, USDA and the State Vets won't even show up anymore because they look so bad when challenged with the documents. A Missouri Farm Bureau State board member showed up at the last public meeting in Belle Missouri in August but when I asked the crowd to raise their hand if Farm Bureau needs to do a 180-degree turnaround on this issue all the hands went up. Farm Bureau has covered up the truth about this system to their membership, as have many other organizations.

 Missouri Farm Bureau told the USDA last year in a letter dated July 6, 2005 and signed by President Kruse [contrary to Missouri FB policy at that time] that;


·       They believe a Mandatory System will ultimately be necessary.

·        Producers would be willing to pay a fee.... for tagging.

·       Both seller and buyer should report animal movements

·       Animals [should] be identified prior to entering commerce or being commingled

·       The suggested timeline for implementing NAIS is realistic.

·       All livestock listed in the draft standard plan should be included, [e.g. cattle, bison, swine, sheep, goats, horses, poultry, alpacas, llamas, deer, elk, and aquaculture.


Missouri Farm Bureau President Charles Kruse is also on the American Farm Bureau Board that does favor a MANDATORY System.  The NAIS will suck billions from the pockets of producers over the next several years unless it is stopped. This can be stopped if we get our legislators to refuse to implement this program on the state level. The states must stop taking money from the Federal Government for this program! This will be devastating for the last of our independent small farmers and ranchers as they struggle to remain viable. This is a violation of our constitution. This is a violation of our freedom. This is a violation of all that we in the country hold dear, and it must be stopped!



Bob Parker and his wife Karen have farmed in Missouri since 1977. They continue to run registered Corriente cattle on their 700 acre farm near Raymondville, Missouri. Bob has served on the Texas County Farm Bureau board for many years and continues to travel across Missouri and Arkansas speaking at public meetings about the National Animal Identification System.

Bob can be reached at

Letter sent 9 8 06 to Matt Salmon, Arizona Republican Chairman:

Matt -
     I loved you as a Congressman and supported you for governor. We met several times, and talked about
10 minutes at the Pima Air Museum event in Tucson, with General Joe Foss.
    What the national party is doing now is despicable in supporting Huffman after promising to stay neutral.
It seems they are committed to making sure we have open borders. Stands like that are what convinced me
to leave the Republican Party in 2000 and become an independent. (Specifically it was McCain-Leiberman
gun show bill that was the final push.) This reconfirms my choice.
     I will be encouraging others to do the same on my radio show, heard throughout most of Arizona. This
must be very exciting for you. I wish the party glorious failure until it obeys principle. (By that I mean not
receiving calls from Jim Click to support Huffman as the "only" candidate who can beat the democrats.
What mendacity!
     You guys need to adopt the philosophy, "WWRD." (What would Reagan do.)
     I'd appreciate it if you formed a profile in courage and told the NRCC where to stick their interferrence.
I'm cc'ing this to them, and posting this on my website. . Sunshine is the
best disinfectant for policies like this. Hopefully it will cure the infestation.
In Liberty,
Charles Heller

Liberty Watch Radio Network
AM 690  KVOI  Tucson
AM 930  KAPR Douglas
AM1240 KJAA  Globe
AM1100 KFNX  Phoenix
520 870 2700
cc: Sandra Miller
      Randy Graf
      Mike Jenkins
      Frank Antonori
      Mike Hellon

From: Charles Heller [] Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 10:50 PM
To:  Subject: Sandy Froman; Stem Cell Research



Dear Rabbi Cohon -


     I have the pleasure of listening to you program on the way to KVOI Sunday mornings for my show, Swap Shop, and Liberty Watch, and then America Armed & Free. I love your sense of humor and style of presenting your point of view. Your production quality is top notch. You have interesting guests. And sometimes you make me nuts.


     I've been meaning to write to you about the Sandy Froman interview, when she compared guns to fire extinguishers, and you said that "not many children get hurt by fire extinguishers." While that is objectively true, many children DO get hurt by fires, which could be reduced if children could be taught to use fire extinguishers to make a pathway to escape. Guns are simply ballistic fire extinguishers.


     Honestly, how you can ignore the lessons of history is a mystery to me. Especially you. I have a challenge for you, a civil and polite one. Please look up a group called Jews For The Preservation of Gun Ownership, at . The guy that runs it, Aaron Zelman, would be a fantastic interview for you. His organization has published many scholarly studies on the links between gun control and genocide. I'm not going to convert you, but just look.


     Next item: stem cell research. Below is copied an article from Time Magazine. (So sue me for copyright infringement.) It makes a good point, that research in this important area of health is best left to the private sector. I agree with you that Bush's reasoning on the matter is specious, but the fact remains that the result of his keeping the avaricious hands of government out of the research pot will serve to enhance, not retard, said research. (The red highlighted parts below are my doing, not Time's.)


     I fully realize that you come at this from the point of view of Jewish law. Hey, is there a chance that you might be looking at this from (forgive me) a position that is, well, too Jewish?  What I mean by that, is that you may not be seeing the picture in the larger context; private research is usually far less inhibited in its approach and therefore more fecund. That is a larger context than Jewish law, good as a starting point though it may be.


     Who funded Jonas Saulk? His research was privately done. (My aunt was married to his brother, Bud.) Do we really want "government" scientists curing things? Let's let government do the 17 things authorized by Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution, and leave the research of other things to the smart folks, Eh?


     By the way, the crack about life not beginning until the youngest hits medical school, is funny. Maybe he might be the one who finds a cure for cancer,  but not as likely if he works for the government, no?


     If you would like to discuss this on the air, I am open to it, and I think it would be good for both of our shows. I am certain that there would be at least three opinions between the two of us. I'd also be open to teaching gun safety classes at the schull. I'm a state certified instructor. It could save lives.


Charles Heller
Liberty Watch Radio

520 870 2700 m

Stem cells: Hope and hype

It's hard to tell who's being straight about politically charged topic

Sunday, July 30, 2006; Posted: 8:59 p.m. EDT (00:59 GMT)

Editor's note: The following is a summary of this week's Time magazine cover story.

( ) -- Stem-cell research has joined global warming and evolution science as fields in which the very facts are put to a vote, a public spectacle in which data wrestle dogma.

Opponents of embryonic stem cell research -- starting with President Bush -- argue that you can't destroy life in order to save it; supporters argue that an eight-cell embryo doesn't count as a human life in the first place -- not when compared with the life it could help save.

Opponents say the promise of embryo research has been oversold; supporters retort that adult stem cells are still of limited use, and to fully realize their potential we would need to know more about how they operate -- which we can learn only from studying leftover fertility-clinic embryos that would otherwise be thrown away.

Back and forth it goes, the politics driving the science, the science pushing back.

Adult-stem-cell research is morally fine but clinically limiting, since only embryonic cells possess the power to replicate indefinitely and grow into any of more than 200 types of tissue.

Extracting knowledge from embryos that would otherwise be wasted is one thing, but scientists admit that moving forward will require a much larger supply of fresh, healthy embryos than fertility clinics could ever provide. And once you start asking people about creating embryos for the purpose of experimenting on them, the support starts to slow down.

Five years after Bush announced that federal money could go to researchers only working on embryonic stem cell lines that scientists had already developed, Democrats hope to leverage the issue as evidence that they represent the reality-based community, running against the theocrats.

States from Connecticut to California have tried to step in with enough funding to keep the labs going and slow the exodus of U.S. talent to countries like Singapore, Britain and Taiwan.

Meanwhile, private biotech firms and research universities with other sources of funding are free to create and destroy as many embryos as they like, because they operate outside the regulations that follow public funds.

For scientists who choose to work with the approved "presidential" lines, the funding comes wrapped in frustration. Today there are only 21 viable lines, which limits genetic diversity. They are old, so they don't grow very well, and were cultured using methods that are outdated. What's more, the chromosomes undergo subtle changes over time, compromising the cells' ability to remain "normal."

To get around political roadblocks, scientists are searching for a source of cells that is less ethically troublesome, ideally one that involves no embryo destruction at all.

One approach is "altered nuclear transfer," in which a gene would be removed before the cell is fused with the egg. That would ensure that the embryo lives only long enough to produce stem cells and then dies.

The most exciting new possibility doesn't go near embryos at all.

Dr. Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University reported tantalizing success in taking an adult skin cell, exposing it to four growth factors in a petri dish and transforming it into an embryo-like entity that could produce stem cells.

But even if scientists discover the ideal source of healthy cell lines, there is still much to learn about how to coax them into turning into the desired kind of tissue. And the closer scientists come to human trials, the more concerned the FDA will be with ensuring patient safety.

While scientists press ahead with embryo research, exciting news has come from the least controversial sources: the stem cells in umbilical-cord blood and placentas, and even in fully formed adult organs.

While not as flexible as embryonic cells, cord and placental cells have proved more valuable than scientists initially hoped. Although about 90 percent of cord-blood stem cells are precursors for blood and immune cells, the remaining 10 percent give rise to liver, heart-muscle and brain cells and more.

In the end, the source of the stem cells, whether embryonic or adult, doesn't matter to scientists. What counts is the ability to generate consistent, high-quality cells that can be safely transplanted.

Even the true believers among scientists, however, dispute eager politicians who have called for a Manhattan Project approach to research.

The key is to have the broadest cross section of scientists working across the field.

When it comes to such an impossibly complicated matter as stem cells, the best role for legislators and presidents may be neither to steer the science nor to stall it but to stand aside and let it breathe.

Click here for the entire cover story on Time.

Copyright © 2006 Time Inc.

This was posted to the debate forum on VROC.

Monsters and the Weak            by Michael Marks

The sun beat like a hammer, not a cloud was in the sky.
The mid-day air ran thick with dust, my throat was parched and dry.
With microphone clutched tight in hand and cameraman in tow,
I ducked beneath a fallen roof, surprised to hear "stay low."

My eyes blinked several times before in shadow I could see,
the figure stretched across the rubble, steps away from me.
He wore a cloak of burlap strips, all shades of grey and brown,
that hung in tatters till he seemed to melt into the ground.

He never turned his head or took his eye from off the scope,
but pointed through the broken wall and down the rocky slope.
"About eight hundred yards," he said, his whispered words concise,
"beneath the baggy jacket he is wearing a device."

A chill ran up my spine despite the swelter of the heat,
"You think he's gonna set it off along the crowded street?"
The sniper gave a weary sigh and said "I wouldn't doubt it,"
"unless there's something this old gun and I can do about it."

A thunder clap, a tongue of flame, the still abruptly shattered;
while citizens that walked the street were just as quickly scattered.
Till only one remained, a body crumpled on the ground,
The threat to oh so many ended by a single round.

And yet the sniper had no cheer, no hint of any gloat,
instead he pulled a logbook out and quietly he wrote.
"Hey, I could put you on TV, that shot was quite a story!" <
But he surprised me once again -- "I got no wish for glory."

"Are you for real?" I asked in awe, "You don't want fame or
He looked at me with saddened eyes and said "you just don't get it."
"You see that shot-up length of wall, the one without a door?
before a mortar hit, it used to be a grocery store."

"But don't go thinking that to bomb a store is all that cruel,
the rubble just across the street -- it used to be a school.
The little kids played soccer in the field out by the road,"
His head hung low, "They never thought a car would just explode."

"As bad as all this is though, it could be a whole lot worse,"
He swallowed hard, the words came from his mouth just like a curse.
"Today the fight's on foreign land, on streets that aren't my own,"
"I'm here to day 'cause if I fail, the next fight's back at home."

"And I won't let my Safeway burn, my neighbors dead inside,
don't wanna get a call from school that says my daughter died;
I pray that not a one of them will know the things I see,
nor have the work of terrorists etched in their memory."

"So you can keep your trophies and your fleeting bit of fame,
I don't care if I make the news, or if they speak my name."
He glanced toward the camera and his brow began to knot,
"If you're looking for a story, why not give this one a shot."

"Just tell the truth of what you see, without the slant or spin;
that most of us are OK and we're coming home again.
And why not tell our folks back home about the good we've done,
how when they see Americans, the kids come at a run."

You tell 'em what it means to folks here just to speak their mind,
without the fear that tyranny is just a step behind;
Describe the desert miles they walk in their first chance to vote,
or ask a soldier if he's proud, I'm sure you'll get a quote."

He turned and slid the rifle in a drag bag thickly padded,
then looked again with eyes of steel as quietly he added;
"And maybe just remind the few, if ill of us they speak,
that we are all that stands between the monsters and the weak."

Michael Marks         US MARINE          January 25, 2006

                                Americans With No Abilities Act (AWNAA)

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 4, 2006

The Congress is considering sweeping legislation, which provides new benefits for many Americans. The Americans With No Abilities Act AWNAA) is being hailed as a major legislation by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real skills, motivation, or ambition.

"Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society," said Barbara Boxer. "We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability to be ridiculed and passed over while people who are willing to work hard to earn a living get ahead in this country. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply because they do a better job, are willing to accept responsibility and have some idea of what they are doing."

Senators Ted Kennedy and John Kerry pointed to the success of the US Postal Service, which has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance. Approximately 87 percent of postal employees lack job skills, making this agency the single largest US employer of Persons of Inability. The percentage was even higher for those in management positions.

Private sector industries with good records of nondiscrimination against the Inept include retail sales (82%), the airline industry (92%), and home improvement "warehouse" stores (89%) The DMV also has a great record of hiring Persons of Inability (77%).

Under the Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25 million "middle man" positions will be created, with important-sounding titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and performance. Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be given, to guarantee upward mobility for even the most unremarkable employees.

The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations which maintain a significant level of Persons of Inability in middle positions, and gives a tax credit to small and medium businesses that agree to hire two clueless workers for every one talented hire.

Finally, the AWNA ACT contains tough new measures to make it more difficult to discriminate against the Non-abled, banning discriminatory interview questions such as "Do you have any goals for the future?" or "Do you have any skills or experience which relate to this job?" or "Do you know of any reason you can not do this job?" Furthermore, references of prior employers are forbidden.

"As a Non-abled person, I can't be expected to keep up with people who have something going for them," said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint, MI due to her lack of notable job skills. "This new law should really help people like me." With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other untalented, unmotivated, intelligently-challenged citizens can finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Said Senator Ted Kennedy, "It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every American citizen, regardless of his or her adequacy, with some sort of space to take up in this great nation."

As a footnote: Employers will not be allowed to pass on any added costs (if any) to their customers.


Government authorized ways to celebrate your freedoms, this 4th of July

By John Perna  


As we go out to celebrate our freedom this 4th of July, let's go over a few things to make your celebration a success.


Do not claim that freedom of speech gives you the right to wear a Tee-shirt that the government doesn't like. They can put you in jail.


Tidy up you house before you leave in case it is searched while you are out. You used to have the right to freedom from search unless a search warrant is issued. Now the police can come into your home, and take whatever they want, and not tell you until 2 weeks later, if they tell you at all. They don't even have to knock on the door before they barge in.


Before leaving home make sure you check the color coded Homeland Security alert status. Be especially careful if it is orange or red.  Don't worry about yellow.  It's always yellow.


Don't use any illegal fireworks in your 4th Celebration. It is for your own safety. And the founding father's implemented a government to protect you from yourselves. Didn't they? Besides, fireworks are explosive devices and you might be considered a terrorist with weapons of mass destruction.  And although the government can't find any in Iraq, you can rest assured they will find them in your car trunk.  But don't worry, getting arrested, imprisoned indefinitely without formal charges, and a 5 year wait before the secret tribunal trial per the Patriot Act is a breeze.  It's that secret summary execution that should make you nervous.


Make sure you are buckled up in your seat belts, there will be roadblocks and checkpoints to make sure you comply. It is for the children. Have your papers ready as you approach the holiday police checkpoints.


If you are an airline employee, lighten up for the holiday, you can always look for a job tomorrow. Maybe you could transfer over to a Federal Airport Security Screener job. Big demand for those jobs and you don't have to be smart.


If you are a Haliburton employee, then celebrate: You probably have a raise coming from the Iraqi contract windfall.


If celebrating on any public property, make no mention of religious ideals. Government is god there. You will be apprehended.


Don't criticize the President, or other government officials; you might be in violation of the Patriot Act and considered a possible terrorist.


Don't mention the Constitution in any district court, or you could be held in contempt.


If your children get out of line this holiday, do not discipline them, or they may be kidnapped by the Dept. of Social Services and held hostage until you sign a confession, receive approved psychological therapy, and are deemed acceptable.


Show compassion this Independence Day by bringing an illegal immigrant to your celebration, or by hugging a tree.


If an election is occurring in your locality within the next 90 days, do not talk about or publicly support any candidate, as that is no longer lawful. Keep your mouth shut.


If an officer asks to search your vehicle at the "seat belt" checks, do not be belligerent and demand a search warrant. Standing up for your fourth amendment rights is anti-social and not in tune with the new American way. Are you with Al Quada or something?


Do not get upset when the searching officer will not help you pick up your belongings that he has strewn all over the highway as he searched your vehicle. It is not in his job description and complaining will get you charged with obstructing justice.


Keep your guns at home. You are not going hunting and besides, what on earth do guns have to do with American Independence? Better yet, turn your guns into the authorities to let them know that you are a true patriotic American. You still have the right to carry a gun if you have a license, but that will soon be gone if the United Nations passes their measure making carrying a gun illegal.


Better yet, just STAY at home. BUT do not assume that you are safe, because you are at home. If a government bureaucrat shows up at your home, he will probably be flashing a badge at you. This makes him look like a constitutional law enforcement officer. He may even be armed. Do not ask to see a warrant, and then tell him to leave if he does not have one. They will put a siege around your house. If you do not come out soon enough, they may invade, with guns drawn, or even set your house on fire.


For more information, do a Google search using keywords like "Symbioses Liberation Army", "Philadelphia MOVE group",  "Gordon Kahl", "The Order", "Robert Matthews", "Covenant of the Sword and Arm of the Lord",  "Randy Weaver" , "Branch Davidian", or "Elian Gonzalez".


If you are counting on you congressman to protect you, understand that the average congressman is ALSO afraid to resist.


For more information, do a Google search using keywords like "George Hanson" , "James Trafficant" or "Larry McDonald".


You used to have the right to privacy. Now they have cameras everywhere watching you. If celebrating at the mall you are probably safe as the mall is now monitored by hundreds of surveillance cameras, watched by federal security forces. Don't do anything that you wouldn't want them to see.


Bring lots of cash with you, there will be many taxes, fines, and fees to pay as you celebrate your freedoms this day.


Do not leave home without your driver's license, social security card, birth certificate, welfare card, Medicare card, medical records, W-2 Form, and two others forms of ID.  You may be asked for them at the police checkpoints. Better yet, get micro-chipped, and avoid the hassle of carrying around your papers. Bring your library card, the FBI may ask you for it.


Do not put any "anti-government" bumper stickers on your car. Especially not anything about the right to keep and bear arms. Police have been trained by the FBI in "bumper sticker profiling". This attracts their attention at the check points, and makes you look like a terrorist.


With regard to "bumper sticker profiling" you should be especially aware of the fact that "They will get my gun, when they pry it from my cold dead fingers" is no longer mere semantics. At WACO, and at RUBY RIDGE, we learned that they WILL kill you to take your guns.


ALSO, be careful not to have any unauthorized THOUGHTS. There are now serious penalties for "thought crime".


Be aware that "civil forfeiture" laws make it possible to take anything that you own, by alleging that it was "intended" to be used for the commission of a crime. This could include transporting, or storing, a gun.


If "civil forfeiture" proceedings are initiated against you, then you will have the burden of proof, to show that your thoughts were in compliance with government standards.


Get to know some politicians, and bureaucrats, so that you might be able to head off the taking of your private property to be given to private developers for the "public good".


If traveling by air, this Independence Day, do not give the airport screeners a hard time. They are feeling you up, and molesting your daughter, and wife, for the security of America.  If you complain you could be arrested.  You don't support Bin Laden do you?


Keep an eye on your fellow Americans as you celebrate this 4th of July.  If you see anything suspicious, take notes so that when you get home you can call and report them to the Homeland Security Office. And remember you are not a nosey snitch, you are a great American Patriot.


Do not mention the signers of the Declaration of Independence this 4th of July. Mentioning these white subversive terrorists is not popular and could get you in big trouble. Besides what do these guys have to do with the 4th of July anyway?


Do not leave home without one or more little plastic American flags made by political slaves in Communist China. Make sure you have one flying from the antennae of your vehicle. You don't want to seem un-American do you?


Do not take a copy of the Declaration of Independence with you as it advocates the overthrow of tyrannical government. It is a terrorist document and will be confiscated at the holiday police checkpoints.


Same advice for the Constitution.


And remember, as you leave home for your 4th of July outing, that the second you stepped out of your door that you probably broke hundreds of federal, state, and local laws that you are probably unaware of. However, if you tow the line, you will not be charged.


If arrested you used to have the right to a jury trial, and to be told what you have done wrong, and appointed council.


Now you can be labeled an "enemy combatant" or terrorist, and be placed in jail with no trial, no lawyer, nothing for as long as they want.


Don't even think about taxes on this great day. The 50 per cent government confiscation of your income at the threat of imprisonment or at the point of a gun should not even cross your mind as you revel in your freedom. After all, April 15th is a long way off.


And whatever you do, do not let on that you really know that true freedom died a long time ago in America, just have fun for the day and then go home and stick your head back in the sand and pretend America is not becoming a fascist police state.


So at every opportunity describe the horrible conditions that prevailed in the Republic the Founding Fathers had assembled here. Explain the lunacy of personal sovereignty. Extol the tranquility of a democracy. Define the marvelous right you have allowing government to take your substance to give to another. Show that God Himself could not have done better. Describe the splendor of having government tuck you in at night, promise you that everything will be fine, and then sing you a lullaby. Make sure all understand the madness of determining what is best for you, when you have a government so much better equipped to do this for you than you are.


If you have a few decades with nothing better to do, study up on "administrative law". Laws are now made by the unelected bureaucrats, in hundreds of "administrative agencies".


If you are charged with violating one of these "laws" you will not get a trial by a jury of your peers. You will be tried by the agency that made the "law" and made the charge against you. If you appeal this "conviction," your appeal will also be heard by the administrative agency that "convicted" you. Their ruling will probably be that they were right.


I hope this message gets past the Department of Home land Insecurity approved internet filter. How else can they protect us from unauthorized thought?


Now go out and celebrate your
Don't Say good-bye

This is a moving video and song by Sean Sasser in Tucson.





Back in November, I had Frances Moore Lappe on, author of "Diet For A Small Planet," and more recently, "Thin Democracy." I had her back on again in March. Frances is a sweet lady who does not understand cause to effect reasoning. Below is our communication over the last few months.


Francis Moore Lappe

25 Mount Auburn St., Suite 203
Cambridge, Ma 02138



Charles Heller
Liberty Watch Radio
Tucson, Az.

March 23, 2006


Dear Charles,


     Thank you for the books you sent. I am grateful that you wish to stay in communication.


     I feel pretty discouraged after the last interview. I just don't get how your mind works. I felt I never got across my central idea: It is so clear that, of course, there are always individuals who can overcome just about any adversity. Yet we know that social settings make HUGE differences in whether individuals can express their innate gifts and flourish. We see this in the vast differences in achievment across cultures and between communities within the same culture. If these were some innate, fixed human capacity, then all cultures would have the same share of achievers and non-achievers.


     So why not focus on creating the social conditions that have been proven to allow more, rather than fewer, people to flourish? (We all gain when our compatriots are expressing their gifts.) It doesn't take a graduate degree in economics or sociology to know what conditions allow more people of any society to flourish: good schools, access to good health care, affordable housing, and jobs that pay enough to live in dignity. We are losing ground on all these fronts. Again: of course there are always a small minority who can overcome but the point is that for the sake of all of us we need conditions that allow more, not fewer to achieve.


    The core difference between us is that I don't believe that human beings can live in health and develop their full potential, including their spiritual potential, in societies in which they know that others are deprived of what they need to thrive. It creates stress, violence, depression, and fear.


     I See "living democracy" I talk about in my book as responding to our deep social nature in which we suffer when others suffer and experience joy when others thrive.


     I wish you the best,


     Francis Moore Lappe


                   ___________________Reply separator_________________           





5 18 06
Mrs. Francis Moore Lappe

25 Mount Auburn St., Suite 203
Cambridge, Ma 02138


Frances -


     Thanks for your acknowledgement about the books. The first thing I want you to know, is that you are loveable, and I believe that your words and your deeds are in concert, making you a respectable human being. I want this letter to be received in that context.


     I think you are completely accurate when you say that you do not understand how I think, and I am also pretty sure I know why. I am certain that as most creative and very loving people, you replace reason, cause to effect reason, with emotion. You may very well try to fill your position in all around you with reason, but you come to conclusions emotionally. The palliative of doing so does not change reality; it merely ignores it in the cause of feeling. It's rather likeasking how one feels about gravity. It really does not matter to gravity how one feels. Gravity has equal pull on all, according to their weight.


       The converse, however, is not true. I believe I understand exactly how you think. I believe this is true because I have read your book, and your letters.  You said, in your letter above, "It doesn't take a graduate degree in economics or sociology to know what conditions allow more people of any society to flourish: good schools, access to good health care, affordable housing, and jobs that pay enough to live in dignity."


     Frances, while it is objectively true that a degree in economics is not necessary to an understanding of it, a basic familiarity with dynamic economics is foundational to reasoned comprehension of it. What under girds a society in which more people flourish, is freedom, and a competitive market. If by "affordable housing," you mean subsidized housing, you just simply could not be more wrong. If by "affordable housing," you mean housing that is not fettered by wasteful regulation, you are completely right. I believe however, that you mean the former, not the latter, in controversion of fact, reality, and experience. (I am quoting a
recent HUD study saying that regulatory costs amounted to 33% of new housing.)


     The idea that, "good access to health care," allows people to flourish, is not bad on its face. The question remains what you mean by "health care." If by that you mean a family doctor who knows you, in a neighborhood close to you, I'd agree. It is good for families to have a family doctor. Better still if they have other options in health care, such as a chiropractor, and other low intensity modalities of treatment. But if you mean by "good access to health care," a complex system whereby everything is "covered" when you go there forservice, that is a system which will damage most, the poor.


      The reason for that, and it is why you have to understand economics, is that when you make unlimited service available at a low cost; people will take advantage of it and use up the resources. This has the effect of either limiting the availability of services, or increasing the costs. The more such a system is used, the more regulatory costs increase as well. If your idea is the latter not the former, as I believe it is, your well-intentioned idea causes harm to those whom you purport to help.


     Your phrase, "live in dignity," implies that dignity is established by an external condition of wage, set by someone other than the wage earner such as the employer. The market ultimately sets the levels of wages. Any person wishing to increase his worth, need only improve himself in his skills or get trained in a profession that pays the wage level he seeks. It is that simple. Anyone not understanding that principle, and wishing to increase his wage through coercion rather than improvement, does not deserve more because he has not made himself more valuable. Making oneself more valuable to a market is what causes a person to experience "dignity." Anyone who does not grasp that concept is in need of a greater understanding of economics, albeit, not necessarily a master's degree.


     Let me give you two direct examples of dignity. I mentioned in my previous letter that I have been both homeless and bankrupt. I'm sure that I could have qualified for public assistance at that time, but it would have never occurred to me to do so. That is dignity. I know that I have never accepted the proceeds of a theft from others, which the functional definition of government welfare.


      My wife, before I married her on July 4th, 1986, was a single mom for some time. She had a very hard time with 2 children and an apartment, putting food on the table. It never occurred to her to ask for public assistance. It was offered to her, and the local welfare people were dumbfounded that she would not take it. She had to say no several times to get it through their thick skulls that people with dignity do not take public assistance. Now she did accept a car from family, and re-gifted that car to someone else in need when we
got married, but she was never on the public dole. That is dignity.


     Somehow, an insane notion has gotten into society, that you have to "feel good" in order to accomplish something. There is this goofy idea about that self-esteem precedes, ratherthan follows accomplishment. Those who perpetrate such fraudulent ideas should be exposed as societal pariahs, should they not?


      You are certainly right about "the core difference between us is that I [Frances] don't believe that human beings can live in health and develop their full potential, including their spiritual potential, in societies in which they know that others are deprived of what they need to thrive. It creates stress, violence, depression, and fear." That is indeed a core difference between us, Frances.


     You see when I observe a person do something stupid, and then pay a painful consequence for it; I believe that the universe is in balance. As it says in the essay I encouraged you to read, "50 Points Of Freedom," stupidity should be painful. The fact that we do everything possible to insulate people from the direct responsibility for their own stupidity is shameful. My success is not in any way hampered by those who do not suc-ceed, but your attempt to slow the success of some so that others may catch up, is based, I believe, in a lack of understanding of the fundamentals of economics. This is he triumph of feeling over fact, in other words.


     Next, you talk about stress and fear as if they were bad things. Read Gavin DeBecker's, "The Gift Of Fear." You will see that fear is a good and natural thing that generally keeps us from doing things we should not do. Stress is a wonderful motivator, in the proper context. This desire you evince to remove it from society is a net loss, not gain.


     Second, violence. Violence is caused by one thing, and one thing only, excessive use of force. There is nothing wrong with force, as long as it is moral and reasonable. Society suffers from the lack of the proper use of force. This is true in families where there is no strong father figure. The black community is badly affected by that in America,in large part due to government incentive. We need to encourage marriage in this country, between one man and one woman. This is not because of some Judeo-Christian concept -
it's because that is what works for healthy, stable families.


    I have focused on one of the most important social conditions to allow people to flourish, and you have ducked it both on the air and in writing. It is the democratization of the means of force. You have eluded, evaded, and obfuscated any meaningful answer. I find that as frustrating as you do in not getting your point across. That is the real difference between us, Frances. I confront the uncomfortable head on, and you ponder it over a mocha-latte.  There is much to be said for the mocha-lattatude. It's good if you are going to write an emotion-based book, just not so hot for a  sustainable level of freedom in society.


     Lastly, I want to point out that in your first letter to me you asserted that the U.S. has the highest level of "poverty" of all industrialized countries. I challenged your facts and asked for a source for that statement. You have so far offered none. You stated in your letter above, "..good schools, access to good health care, affordable housing, and jobs that pay enough to live in dignity. We are losing ground on all these fronts." Frances, I'd like to know where you get those statistics. Please state a source for you assertion. I know
that one of the main things holding down labor prices today is illegal aliens entering the work force, according to information obtained from numbers USA, at . Controlling our borders and deporting illegals will help reduce that, if the Congress ever summons the courage to obey its collective oath, and the President follows suit.


     You make me think. You help me, in your lack of understanding of dynamic economics, to allow my thoughts to coalesce. I suspect you do the same thing to my audience, althoughI have no objective proof of it - only an "emotional" hunch. (Hmmm, musta been that latte I had earlier..)


    I am willing to have you back on for an hour, and I'll call you this time. I will let you say anything you want for the first half hour - you can control the conversation, except for station identification and recitation of phone numbers. You can talk about anything you want. If you don't want me to speak for that half hour, except to announce breaks, I can abide by that. You can ask me questions and tell me how long you want the answers to be. In essence, I will cede the duties of host to you. But then I want to ask you questions in the second half
hour of the show, and I want you to answer them directly, not change the base of the questions like the last time I asked you about the democratization of the means of force. I also notice that you did not answer the questions I posed to you in my last letter. There are NO trick questions on Liberty Watch.


     So that is the offer - you get the first half hour to make statements, explain your book, give your website address, or read poetry if you like, and I get the last half hour to ask you questions. I'll even tell you the topic (not the questions, as that is not journalistically ethical.) The topic will be the evils of democracy. The only rules are that you have to answer the questions honestly, and succinctly in the second half hour. I will be civil and polite, as I was the last two times. I will simply introduce you, say that you were frustrated in not getting your point across last time, and turn the floor over to you.


     I have NEVER offered a guest a third chance to make a point. The fact that I am doing it shows my admiration for your commitment to your beliefs. As I said in the beginning, I find you lovable. I guess I am a funny combination of loving and harsh. Comes from growing up in a household with a Mom and a Dad, I suppose. Mom was creative, a musician and poet, and Dad was more objectivist. Come back on and test both sides of me. You can even tell me in the first half hour if you want a feeling, or reasoned answer to any question you ask. I'll be your Huckleberry. Wanna tango?


In Liberty
Charles Heller
Liberty Watch Radio
Tucson, Arizona
520 870 2700


Open letter I wrote to Francis Moore Lappe, the 11-27-05 guest on Liberty

Frances -


        Got your letter in the mail today. It is rare that anyone takes the time anymore to use a paper letter. I am also impressed by your passion for your subject and your committment to it in the form of books.


        Sorry I cannot find the reference from the site I was on, doing research for your interview.  I believe that I misspoke on the air, claiming that after one year, 89% of associates had stock in the company. The figure, as I recall  it, was after 5 years, not one year. I do not remember the exact site from which I got it, except that it was about 5 links deep in what I was on. I had about 12 pages open at the time, so I confused some of the sites with the company's, more than likely.


        I was also incorrect about a statement I made on health care. Wal Mart associates are not eligible after 4 months as I stated on the air. They are eligible after one year. The plan costs between $40 - $60 for an individual per month, and around $120 for a family. As such, anyone can afford it, if they have any
sense in how to manage money.


        Because of this, I have instituted a new policy for my show. I will either quote the source book, or have a url for a website in front of me from now on when I quote a statistic. I must do that to maintain the credibility of the information given on the show. Thank you for the impetus  to do this.


        I am quite sincere about honest dialogue, which is why I am open to having you back on. So in response to your question, "how does your view that individual choices create poverty jibe  with widely varying rates of poverty in different societies? "The U.S. has the most poverty compared with other industrialized countries. Why would more Americansmake the wrong choices compared   to  people in other industrial countries," I will now answer directly.


        First let me tell you that I believe your premise that the U.S. has the most poverty compared to other industrialized countries, is not just flawed, but completely false. It does not stand up in the light of reason for an instant. However, in order for me to set an example of giving the intellectually honest  answers, I am going to first assume for purposes of discussion, that your premise is correct, and  answer your question. Then, after having done so, I will give what I believe is the right answer based  on a true premise.


      If we assume that the U.S. has the most poverty amongst the industrialized nations, there could be several, if not many reasons. First among many would be the public schools and their failure to teach  the most basic of usable job skills to students. Second is the degredation of families in the U.S. and  a lack of structure therein on which to base students ready to learn. Next is television, and the concommitant lack of reading skill and frequency necessary to a good work force and a free electorate.


        The self esteem movement is in part responsible for the decline of American culture and prod- uctivity. The self esteem movement is based on the wrongful notion that self esteem proceeds  success. In fact, it is success that leads to true self esteem. Today many students are taught to feel good about effort, even if that
effort leads to poor performance. There is a word that describes feeling good about doing a bad job. That word is delusion.


        The last, for now, goes with the degredation of the family, and it is the single parent household.  Nothing does more to keep children in line and learning, than a focused mother and father. Single parents can certainly do a good job of raising healthy productive children, but the likelyhood of  an intact family doing so is far greater.


        A huge contributor to that demise is welfare. Welfare is one of the most destructive devices  against the poor ever perpetrated.. While intended to help, it largely destroys those who depend on it.  Bill Clinton realized that when he signed legislation to reform it and got many people off of it and  back into productive society.


            An extension of the dependency mindset created by welfare is the lack of democracy in the means of force. When you disarm the honest man or woman, you make him dependent on others for his security. There is no better way to enslave people's minds than to make them dependent on others for their sense of security.


            In many of America's largest cities today, good decent, ordinary people are at greater risk from government than they are from the crack house down the street. A government that disempowers its citizens from the tools of force, deserves to be shunned and bankrupted. Nothing is more democratic than a well armed populace.


        Now that I have done what I asked of you, and answered FIRST the question that was asked, I will tell you what I believe to be true. I do not for a minute think that the assumption that the U.S.  has the highest rate of poverty amongst the industrialized countries, is true. Where did you get that  statistic? (Hopefully you have a better source to quote than I did about Wal Mart!)


        Frances,  what  do you consider to be industrialized? Is Poland industrialized? Ireland? Russia? Are you going to try to tell me with a straight face that Russia has lower poverty than the U.S? That strains the light of reason Francis. It defines the collision at the intersection of common and sense.


        All of the things that I claimed as causal are still in effect, however the premise that the U.S.  has higher poverty than other industrialized countries is still, in my view, flawed. By what standard do  you claim that the U.S. has higher poverty rates?


        People chose their actions. They frequently act out of ignorance, which is curable by information  and the ability to use it. That is not dependent on luck. You claimed that you are "lucky," in your  prosperity. I think that is false. You are not lucky, but hard working. The benefit of that hard work is books that support your lifestyle. Good for you! You take your God given talents and put them to work. You also teach others how to harness their talents. Excellent! But it is not luck - it is hard work that puts you where you are, not luck.


        The biggest arbiter today of income is education. There is no one in this country who cannot get an education, up to and including college if they want it. No one. The problem is that people do not  know that it is available and they do not know how to ask for it. They await hand outs rather than rely  on themselves.
  They simply do not know what they do not know.


        The laws of prosperity are available for study. There is a whole field of study in the area of prosperity that is available to the indigent at no charge. People are poor because they have a consciousness of poverty. Broke people have broke thinking. You show me a poor person and I'll show you a person with no written goals. It's a one to one relationship Frances - no money, no goals.


        I was one once. I do not sit here as the scion of someone wealthy, saying that. I was homeless  and I went bankrupt before I figured it out. I have slept in my car, had a car reposessed, eaten a loaf of bread for breakfast lunch, and dinner for a week, and put .08 in a charity donation box  for a whole flat of donuts once. I have been poor. The only thing that changed since then was a meticulous study of the dynamic laws of prosperity, and a whole lot of reading. And getting  married to a woman who reads more than I do.


        One of the best ways not to be broke is to not owe any money. I do not have a credit  card and I do not owe a cent to a soul. I do not buy anything that I do not have the cash in the bank  to afford, period. If more people in America did that,  we would have a hell of a lot less poverty. Debt is one of the golden keys to poverty, and it is along the road to ruin for many people. There is always someone who will prey on those who know no better than to fall into debt.


            Government can not cure poverty. It is definitionally impossible. As government does not  produce anything, it cannot create anything. By definition, almost everything government attempts  to do to address poverty, will fail. The only thing it can do is create conditions where freedom and prosperity can occur. Mostlyit does this by protecting people's natural rights, and then leaving them the heck alone.


            In closing, I'd like to answer your question as to why Americans make the wrong choices compared to other countries: I'm not sure that they do at all. But to the extent they do, I suspect  it is because of the instant gratification culture that we have developed, and also to a large extent  the fact that we have seperated causes from effects in our culture. We have made it painless to be  stupid. Stupidity should be painful. It's nature's way of telling you, "something's wrong." (See "50 Points Of Freedom," by Charles Heller, .)


We have based our culture on the instant gratification of desire, and the palliative of beauty.  We have opiated ourselves with beer and cable television. We have addicted our culture to the false  god of  pulchritude.


        In short we have seperated ourselves from the idea that natural law is immutable, and we  have reaped a whirlwind of the natural consequences thereof.  Hope that answers  your question.


Charles Heller
Live stream Sunday 12 - 2 PM MST at: 
520 870 2700

     ====================Subject Seperator============


From: Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 12:00 PM
To:  Subject: Hewitt interview of Helen Thomas

Doug -
     Did you hear Hugh Hewitt interview Helen Thomas yesterday in the 4 PM or 5 PM hour?

-- "Doug"  wrote:

Charles, I did, doesn't it reveal what she is all about?  

Doug -

     No, it did not reveal what Mrs. Thomas is about at all, but it put in plain sight how despicable some
attorneys canbe when they want to produce a dishonest result. Helen Thomas was true to what she is.
So was Hewitt, in a despicable example of intellectual dishonesty.

     He disgraced his profession with that so-called "interview." (The profession of talk show hosting.
Lawyering he didnot disgrace, as it has little grace left.)

     Think about this contextually, Doug, not just the content of the spoken words of the interview.
This is what I believe is missing from the milieu of our national conversation. Why would Hewitt not
engage in a realistic dialog with her, answering her responsive questions with reasoned replies???
The answer, contextually, is that he was baiting her to make her look shrill. He wanted her to hang
up on him
. He wanted to be portrayed as the victim of liberal reporters.

     Do you, as a member of the reading and listening public, really give a rat's round end about
whether or not HelenThomas likes George Bush? Or that she is a liberal? Why would that matter?
I like Jimmy Carter, despite the fact that he was a horrible president. He tries to do decent things,
even though he is about as misguided as a human can get without being evil. The fact that I like
him would make NO diference if I were writing a news story for him
at my alma mater, the Chicago

     I dislike Bill Clinton, because he is insincere, and his largest client is Bill Clinton. Do you think
THAT wouldmake a difference in a Tribune news story if I wrote it? Come on. We ALL have prejudices.
You are "prejudiced"towards Christianity. I am "prejudiced" towards Judiasm. We ALL have a slant.
The difference is if we are honest about our slant.

     During that interview, Helen Thomas was honest about her slant. She said that in news stories,
it didn'tmatter. Objectively speaking, she was right. Hewitt did not mention his slant. That was not
honest. Using dishonest techniques to get to an "honest" result, is why I described his actions as
"despicable." Whenliberals do that, we rightly scream. It is no better when conservatives do it, and
it is one of the reasons Imoved away from conservatism. One good thing I'll say about him - he
confirms my political theories.

     When Helen Thomas asked him who he was, it was a perfect opportunity to tell her that he had won
3 Emmy awards for his work on PBS. It would have provided common ground that makes guests want
to open up in mutual respect. But he did not want mutual respect, he wanted confrontation. When you
can bate the other person into confrontation, it usually makes the emotional person look bad, and that
is what he was doing. But you have to look at it contextually to see what he was doing, and that is
what many people fail to do today. They are so "polarized" left to right that they do not spot dishonesty
if it was not committed by their political or "polar" opposite.

     It seems that the left - right controversy is not an original thought with me. Listen to a 1964 clip of
Ronald Reagan about it, attached.

     You are certainly not alone in your analysis of interviews like that, but I sure wish people in general
would think a WHOLE lot more deeply about the consequences of dishonest tactics. The ends do not j
ustify the means. That is collectivism, whether from the left or the right.  When you get a minute, please
read the attached essay "50 Points of Freedom." I have used it on the air when a guest did not show
up. Kinda like Hugh...

    While Hewitt is the best host on radio today, he sometimes does not rise above the primordial ooze
of his Darwinistic primary profession. A foundation built on faction does not compare to one based on
Godly principle, but I guess I'm preaching that to the choir in your case.

     You are free to share and distribute this to anyone you wish. It is my intention to post it to my blog.

Charles Heller


I agree that he was badgering her, like a lawyer, but I think he was doing it tongue and cheek. He
seemed to be having fun and she didn't seem to mind. Good points!


Doug -

       In psychology, they call an answer like that "cognitive dissonance." Hewitt most certainly did know
what he was doing, and used it to the effect to make his guest look bad. Shame on him for his dishonest
tactics. When guests do this to me I run them to ground and force them to answer my questions or admit
dishonesty in the process.



      =========Subject Seperator===============
"There is no reason that young American soldiers need to be going into the
homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know,
women, breaking sort of the customs of the -- of -- of -- of -- historical customs,
religious customs, whether you like it or not. Iraqis should be doing that."

American Troops "Terrorizing" Iraqi Children

December 7, 2005

Photo Sources:
U.S. Army Forces, Central Command, AP

     =========Subject Seperator===============

From John Farnam:

21 Nov 05

TSA Story, from a LEO friend in WA:

"Detective ________ and I flew to San Diego last week to pick up a murder suspect who
was caught trying to cross the border into Mexico.  Getting there was no problem, but after
picking up our prisoner, we went to  the airport at San Diego and met with TSA people.

We presented our credentials, including badges, letter from the chief, etc.  We were then
taken to the 'by-pass' room.  The TSA guy found all our paperwork in order and then said,
'So, will both you officers be traveling armed?'   I explained to him that only I was armed,
and that Detective  _______ was not, as he would be sitting next to the prisoner.  'So,
Detective_______ does not have a gun?' was the reply.  I assured him that was correct.

'Is there a problem?' I asked.

The TSA guy replied, 'If he is not armed, he will have to go back through the inspection line.'

'But, we have all the paperwork here.  He is AUTHORIZED to be armed!' 

'Yes, but since he is not armed, he has to be inspected for dangerous items.

'But he is AUTHORIZED to carry dangerous items!"

'But, because he's NOT carrying anything dangerous, he has to be inspected.'

I  thought about arguing further, but I suddenly remembered that I was dealing with 
a federal employee.  Detective _______ dutifully went through the line as  I, and the
prisoner, waited for him on the other side. 

The prisoner commented, 'This is the stupidest thing I ever heard of!'  I nodded in

Comment: TSA positively gets off on harassing local cops.  But, the greater harm
is this:  Stupid "rules," enforced by mindless,  anti-intellectual, arrogant government
agents, degrades respect for the entire  body of law and for all government agents. 
In doing indefensible, senseless things as described above, TSA performs no good


Site Powered By
    WebBizBuilder Site Manager
    Online web site design