Contact Liberty Watch: charles@libertywatchradio.com

Listen to Liberty Watch recent shows: www.libertywatchradio.com/listen

Listen to the best of Liberty Watch: www.libertywatchradio.com/archive  

Find Frequently asked questions: www.libertywatchradio.com/faq

Fight internet scams: www.libertywatchradio.com/scams

Book a guest on Liberty Watch: www.libertywatchradio.com/bookings

Laugh at publicists who can't be bothered to read the directions above:
                                               www.libertywatchradio.com/bad_pr

WHO'S MORE INSANE ON CRIME?

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
family."

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
idea?

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 drugwarprisoner@gmail.com.

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

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 <http://webmaila.juno.com/webmail/new/8? 
From: John Connery <billbitesrushsxxxx@xxxx.com>

_____________________________________________________________________________________
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. 

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!"
 
Mar

Response to State Senator Paula Aboud On Senate Bill 1214

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

By JOHN R. LOTT JR.
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.

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 bill@becs.us.

_______________________________________________________________________________

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
freedoms.

 ________________________________________________________________________________

Friends,

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
http://www.legislativealerts.sirbarratt.com/ . 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 http://www.legislativealerts.sirbarratt.com/

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
http://www.azcdl.org/html/join_us_.html

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

____________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

National Border Patrol Council
LOCAL 2544
2410 W Ruthrauff Rd, Suite 100
Tucson, Arizona 85705
Office (520) 293-6008
Facsimile (520) 293-6044
www.local2544.org

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

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
breaker 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
us. 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

2

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.

Sincerely,

Edward Tuffly II
President
Local 2544
National Border Patrol Council
___________________________________________________________________ 

Souring The Milk Of Illegal Immigration

By Charles Heller

6/15/07

     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 14^th 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
http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-gun-is-civilization.html

 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.

5 27 07 NEWS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

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."

                                                                          -30-

    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.

                                     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....

   ________________________________________________________________

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.

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.

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?

Respectfully,
Charles F. Heller
Liberty Watch Radio Network
www.libertywatchradio.com/listen
charles@libertywatchradio.com
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
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2007/03/04/ed.edit.zumbo.jmg.0304.p1.php?section=opinionTop 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 Guidestar.org, 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).

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!

/John

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!

/John

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!

/John

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!

/John

 The National Animal Identification Sysytem must be stopped!

 

 

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 [www.animalagriculture.org] 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 Bob@bakerealty.com

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

Liberty Watch Radio Network
AM 690  KVOI  Tucson
AM 930  KAPR Douglas
AM1240 KJAA  Globe
AM1100 KFNX  Phoenix
www.libertywatchradio.com
charles@libertywatchradio.com
520 870 2700

From: Charles Heller [charles@libertywatchradio.com] Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 10:50 PM
To: toojewishradio@yahoo.co  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 www.jpfo.org . 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.

Respectfully,
Charles Heller
Liberty Watch Radio
charles@libertywatchradio.com
www.libertywatchradio.com/bookings

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.

(Time.com ) -- 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.

                                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

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FreedomOfSpeechNow/message/88?l=1  

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?

       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.

Respectfully,
Charles

 

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

 

VIETNAM VETERAN JOHN KERRY:

"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

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
agreement."

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
service.

/John