Tell me about freedom of speech in America!

Threat Level Privacy, Crime and Security Online TSA Threatens Blogger Who Posted New Screening Directive

Two bloggers received home visits from Transportation Security Administration agents Tuesday after they published a new TSA directive that revises screening procedures and puts new restrictions on passengers in the wake of a recent bombing attempt by the so-called underwear bomber.

Special agents from the TSA’s Office of Inspection interrogated two U.S. bloggers, one of them an established travel columnist, and served them each with a civil subpoena demanding information on the anonymous source that provided the TSA document.

The document, which the two bloggers published within minutes of each other Dec. 27, was sent by TSA to airlines and airports around the world and described temporary new requirements for screening passengers through Dec. 30, including conducting “pat-downs” of legs and torsos. The document, which was not classified, was posted by numerous bloggers. Information from it was also published on some airline websites.

“They’re saying it’s a security document but it was sent to every airport and airline,” says Steven Frischling, one of the bloggers. “It was sent to Islamabad, to Riyadh and to Nigeria. So they’re looking for information about a security document sent to 10,000-plus people internationally. You can’t have a right to expect privacy after that.”

Read the rest...

The other side's playbook revealed

Follow this link to the game plan that is being used to wage war against the second amendment. This comes from NYC Mayor Bloomberg's pet organization Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

As usual, with any leftist organization or program, the name is a complete misnomer. It should be called Mayors Against ALL Guns (except their own).


Insights on airline security

Christopher Hitchens has some profound things to say:

Why do we fail to detect or defeat the guilty, and why do we do so well at collective punishment of the innocent? The answer to the first question is: Because we can't—or won't. The answer to the second question is: Because we can. The fault here is not just with our endlessly incompetent security services, who give the benefit of the doubt to people who should have been arrested long ago or at least had their visas and travel rights revoked. It is also with a public opinion that sheepishly bleats to be made to "feel safe." The demand to satisfy that sad illusion can be met with relative ease if you pay enough people to stand around and stare significantly at the citizens' toothpaste. My impression as a frequent traveler is that intelligent Americans fail to protest at this inanity in case it is they who attract attention and end up on a no-fly list instead. Perfect.

Now read it all.

Weather Update - BRRRRRRRRR

More on the unleashing of INTERPOL in America

Columbia Conservative Examiner Anthony Martin digs digger into this secretive new Executive Order of Obama's that grants INTERPOL full powers within the US. (This should frighten even the most politically jaded among us!) Keep in mind that INTERPOL will be (is?) the enforcement arm of the International Criminal Court. this really where we wish to go as a nation? Do we actually want the U.S. President to be accountable to a foreign criminal court for any military action he/she orders? Do we want our military personnel subjected to the political whims of a court in Europe that views practically any U.S. military action to be 'a crime against humanity?' Do we want the ICC (via INTERPOL) going after U.S. Senators for voting in favor of certain military operations that are designed to thwart Islamic Jihadists?

Be sure to read the whole commentary. Like the White House's capture of the census, this action by the Obongo administration is sweeping in its implications for America, AND as to how quietly it was accomplished. The Lame Stream Media is utterly silent on it!


Pushback against Big Brother in Britain

Formerly Great Britain is on the leading edge when it comes to Big Brother statism. There’re probably more cameras per square mile there than any other place on earth! Brits can’t blink an eye without being on a camera or TV monitor since the devices are positioned literally everywhere.

The Brits have made extensive use of traffic speed cameras since they’re such great revenue generators. Other than greedy politicians who’re dedicated shaking down the public, few British are particularly pleased with these speed cameras. I’ve seen several articles about them being vandalized of late.

Here’s another instance of the citizenry fighting back against this “legal” tyranny. Someone jury-rigged some sort of explosive device and blew one of those robotic thieves to smithereens.

Jolly Good I say!

But if you want a REAL laugh click on the link to the article and scroll down for the comments. They are an absolute riot!

edited to say: I played around a bit with the comment filters and found these nuggets of beauty!

Give the guy more supplies, he's got a lot of work to do........ there's thousands of those damn things out there !!

- Den, Herts, 29/12/2009 7:02

If they find who did it all they are going to do is expose a national hero!

- nad, Kettering, 29/12/2009 7:14


- dave, rowlands castle, 29/12/2009 10:57

Instead of being hunted by the police he should be knighted.

- iy, UK, 29/12/2009 7:18

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

I'm sorry i just can't stop myself, here i go again ...

ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,

- barry, woking, surrey, 29/12/2009 10:37

The sad thing about it is this:

I am nearly 50. In my lifetime, I have helped the police with enquiries in the past (not as a suspect, I might add). I have rugby tackled thieves running from shops with other people's goods. I have also rugby tackled a mugger in flight and gone into a burning house to rescue one of the occupants. I don't want a medal, I might add - nor do I want 'carte-blanche' to be able to pick and choose which laws I decide to obey.


I can tell you that I will not help the police again (or the public at large) until this automated legalised theft is dispensed with.

Of course, I don't condone what the culprit did here. But I won't condemn and I certainly would not tell the police if I knew who it was.

Now, the country can continue without MY help, of course: But the question has to be HOW MANY MORE PEOPLE WHO FEEL LIKE ME ABOUT THIS ARE THERE?

I don't like thieves. Even if they are dressed in a blue uniform!

- George, Corby. UK, 29/12/2009 8:00

Released from GITMO, and back in business

Two al Qaeda Leaders Behind Northwest Flight 253 Terror Plot Were Released by U.S.

Two of the four leaders allegedly behind the al Qaeda plot to blow up a Northwest Airlines passenger jet over Detroit were released by the U.S. from the Guantanamo prison in November, 2007, according to American officials and Department of Defense documents. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the Northwest bombing in a Monday statement that vowed more attacks on Americans.

American officials agreed to send the two terrorists from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia where they entered into an "art therapy rehabilitation program" and were set free, according to U.S. and Saudi officials.

Guantanamo prisoner #333, Muhamad Attik al-Harbi, and prisoner #372, Said Ali Shari, were sent to Saudi Arabia on Nov. 9, 2007, according to the Defense Department log of detainees who were released from American custody. Al-Harbi has since changed his name to Muhamad al-Awfi.

What muslims do to their children

If they do this to their own children, what would they do to you and me?

And despite this, I sincerely believe that Obama, Pelosi, Reid & Frank are a bigger threat to America than Islam!


Ever hear of the Greenspan-Guidotti rule?

This Little-Known Rule Could Send Gold to $10,000

By Porter Stansberry
Dec 2 2009 9:10AM

It's one of those numbers that's so unbelievable you have to actually think about it for a while...

Within the next 12 months, the U.S. Treasury will have to refinance $2 trillion in short-term debt. And that's not counting any additional deficit spending, which is estimated to be around $1.5 trillion.

Put the two numbers together. Then ask yourself, how in the world can the Treasury borrow $3.5 trillion in only one year? That's an amount equal to nearly 30% of our entire GDP. And we're the world's biggest economy. Where will the money come from?

How did we end up with so much short-term debt? Like most entities that have far too much debt – whether subprime borrowers, GM, Fannie, or GE – the U.S. Treasury has tried to minimize its interest burden by borrowing for short durations and then "rolling over" the loans when they come due. As they say on Wall Street, "a rolling debt collects no moss."

What they mean is, as long as you can extend the debt, you have no problem. Unfortunately, that leads folks to take on ever greater amounts of debt... at ever shorter durations... at ever lower interest rates. Sooner or later, the creditors wake up and ask themselves: What are the chances I will ever actually be repaid? And that's when the trouble starts. Interest rates go up dramatically. Funding costs soar. The party is over. Bankruptcy is next.

When governments go bankrupt, it's called a "default." Currency speculators figured out how to accurately predict when a country would default. Two well-known economists – Alan Greenspan and Pablo Guidotti – published the secret formula in a 1999 academic paper. The formula is called the Greenspan-Guidotti rule.

The rule states: To avoid a default, countries should maintain hard currency reserves equal to at least 100% of their short-term foreign debt maturities. The world's largest money-management firm, PIMCO, explains the rule this way: "The minimum benchmark of reserves equal to at least 100% of short-term external debt is known as the Greenspan-Guidotti rule. Greenspan-Guidotti is perhaps the single concept of reserve adequacy that has the most adherents and empirical support."

The principle behind the rule is simple. If you can't pay off all of your foreign debts in the next 12 months, you're a terrible credit risk. Speculators are going to target your bonds and your currency, making it impossible to refinance your debts. A default is assured.

So how does America rank on the Greenspan-Guidotti scale? It's a guaranteed default.

The U.S. holds gold, oil, and foreign currency in reserve. It has 8,133.5 metric tonnes of gold (it is the world's largest holder). At current dollar values, it's worth around $300 billion. The U.S. strategic petroleum reserve shows a current total position of 725 million barrels. At current dollar prices, that's roughly $58 billion worth of oil. And according to the IMF, the U.S. has $136 billion in foreign currency reserves. So altogether... that's around $500 billion of reserves. Our short-term foreign debts are far bigger.

According to the U.S. Treasury, $2 trillion worth of debt will mature in the next 12 months. So looking only at short-term debt, we know the Treasury will have to finance at least $2 trillion worth of maturing debt in the next 12 months. That might not cause a crisis if we were still funding our national debt internally. But since 1985, we've been a net debtor to the world. Today, foreigners own 44% of all our debts, which means we owe foreign creditors at least $880 billion in the next 12 months – an amount far larger than our reserves.

Keep in mind, this only covers our existing debts. The Office of Management and Budget is predicting a $1.5 trillion budget deficit over the next year. That puts our total funding requirements on the order of $3.5 trillion over the next 12 months.

So... where will the money come from? Total domestic savings in the U.S. are only around $600 billion annually. Even if we all put every penny of our savings into U.S. Treasury debt, we're still going to come up nearly $3 trillion short. That's an annual funding requirement equal to roughly 40% of GDP.

Where is the money going to come from? From our foreign creditors? Not according to Greenspan-Guidotti. And not according to the Indian or Russian central banks, which have stopped buying Treasury bills and begun to buy enormous amounts of gold. The Indians bought 200 metric tonnes this month. Sources in Russia say the central bank there will double its gold reserves.

So where will the money come from? The printing press. The Federal Reserve has already monetized nearly $2 trillion worth of Treasury debt and mortgage debt. This weakens the value of the dollar and devalues our existing Treasury bonds. Sooner or later, our creditors will face a stark choice: Hold our bonds and continue to see the value diminish slowly, or try to escape to gold and see the value of their U.S. bonds plummet.

One thing they're not going to do is buy more of our debt. Which central banks will abandon the dollar next? Brazil, Korea, and Chile. These are the three largest central banks that own the least amount of gold. None owns even 1% of its total reserves in gold.

I examined these issues in much greater detail in the most recent issue of my newsletter, Porter Stansberry's Investment Advisory. Coincidentally, the New York Times repeated my warnings – nearly word for word – a few weeks ago. They didn't mention Greenspan-Guidotti, however... It's a real secret of international speculators.

My readers know that Greenspan-Guidotti means the U.S. is likely to have a severe currency crisis within the next two years. How high will gold go during this crisis? Nobody can say for sure. We've never been in the situation we are now. The numbers have never been so large and dangerous. But I wouldn't be surprised at all to see gold at $10,000 an ounce by 2012. Make sure you own some.

Good investing,



Luke 2

1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

8 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.

10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

15 And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.

16 And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.

17 And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.

18 And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.

American Soveriegnty takes another shot to the head

Executive Order Amended to Immunize INTERPOL In America - Is The ICC Next?
By Steve Schippert, Clyde Middleton | December 23, 2009

Last Thursday, December 17, 2009, The White House released an Executive Order "Amending Executive Order 12425." It grants INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) a new level of full diplomatic immunity afforded to foreign embassies and select other "International Organizations" as set forth in the United States International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945.

By removing language from President Reagan's 1983 Executive Order 12425, this international law enforcement body now operates - now operates - on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

For Immediate Release December 17, 2009
Executive Order -- Amending Executive Order 12425

- - - - - - -

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2©, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.

December 16, 2009.

After initial review and discussions between the writers of this analysis, the context was spelled out plainly.

Through EO 12425, President Reagan extended to INTERPOL recognition as an "International Organization." In short, the privileges and immunities afforded foreign diplomats was extended to INTERPOL. Two sets of important privileges and immunities were withheld: Section 2© and the remaining sections cited (all of which deal with differing taxes).

And then comes December 17, 2009, and President Obama. The exemptions in EO 12425 were removed.

Section 2c of the United States International Organizations Immunities Act is the crucial piece.

Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable. (Emphasis added.)

Inviolable archives means INTERPOL records are beyond US citizens' Freedom of Information Act requests and from American legal or investigative discovery ("unless such immunity be expressly waived.")

Property and assets being immune from search and confiscation means precisely that. Wherever they may be in the United States. This could conceivably include human assets - Americans arrested on our soil by INTERPOL officers.

Context: International Criminal Court

The importance of this last crucial point cannot be understated, because this immunity and protection - and elevation above the US Constitution - afforded INTERPOL is likely a precursor to the White House subjecting the United States under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). INTERPOL provides a significant enforcement function for the ICC, just as our FBI provides a significant function for our Department of Justice.

We direct the American public to paragraph 28 of the ICC's Proposed Programme Budget for 2010 (PDF).

29. Additionally, the Court will continue to seek the cooperation of States not party to the Rome Statute and to develop its relationships with regional organizations such as the Organization of American States (OAS), the Arab League (AL), the African Union (AU), the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), ASEAN and CARICOM. We will also continue to engage with subregional and thematic organizations, such as SADC and ECOWAS, and the Commonwealth Secretariat and the OIF. This will be done through high level visits, briefings and, as appropriate, relationship agreements. Work will also be carried out with sectoral organizations such as IDLO and INTERPOL, to increase efficiency.

The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute - the UN treaty that established the International Criminal Court. (See: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court)

President George W. Bush rejected subjecting the United States to the jurisdiction of the ICC and removed the United States as a signatory. President Bill Clinton had previously signed the Rome Statute during his presidency. Two critical matters are at play. One is an overall matter of sovereignty and the concept of the primacy of American law above those of the rest of the world. But more recently a more over-riding concern principally has been the potential - if not likely - specter of subjecting our Armed Forces to a hostile international body seeking war crimes prosecutions during the execution of an unpopular war.

President Bush in fact went so far as to gain agreement from nations that they would expressly not detain or hand over to the ICC members of the United States armed forces. The fear of a symbolic ICC circus trial as a form of international political protest to American military actions in Iraq and elsewhere was real and palpable.

President Obama's words have been carefully chosen when directly regarding the ICC. While President Bush outright rejected subjugating American armed forces to any international court as a matter of policy, President Obama said in his 2008 presidential campaign that it is merely "premature to commit" to signing America on.

However, in a Foreign Policy in Focus round-table in 2008, the host group cited his former foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power. She essentially laid down what can be viewed as now-President Obama's roadmap to America rejoining the ICC. His principal objections are not explained as those of sovereignty, but rather of image and perception.

Obama's former foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power, said in an early March (2008) interview with The Irish Times that many things need to happen before Obama could think about signing the Rome Treaty.

"Until we've closed Guantánamo, gotten out of Iraq responsibly, renounced torture and rendition, shown a different face for America, American membership of the ICC is going to make countries around the world think the ICC is a tool of American hegemony.

The detention center at Guantánamo Bay is nearing its closure and an alternate continental American site for terrorist detention has been selected in Illinois. The time line for Iraq withdrawal has been set. And President Obama has given an abundance of international speeches intended to "show a different face for America." He has in fact been roundly criticized domestically for the routinely apologetic and critical nature of these speeches.

President Obama has not rejected the concept of ICC jurisdiction over US citizens and service members. He has avoided any direct reference to this while offering praise for the ICC for conducting its trials so far "in America's interests." The door thus remains wide open to the skeptical observer.


In light of what we know and can observe, it is our logical conclusion that President Obama's Executive Order amending President Ronald Reagans' 1983 EO 12425 and placing INTERPOL above the United States Constitution and beyond the legal reach of our own top law enforcement is a precursor to more damaging moves.

The pre-requisite conditions regarding the Iraq withdrawal and the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility closure will continue their course. meanwhile, the next move from President Obama is likely an attempt to dissolve the agreements made between President Bush and other states preventing them from turning over American military forces to the ICC (via INTERPOL) for war crimes or any other prosecutions.

When the paths on the road map converge - Iraq withdrawal, Guantánamo closure, perceived American image improved internationally, and an empowered INTERPOL in the United States - it is probable that President Barack Obama will once again make America a signatory to the International Criminal Court. It will be a move that surrenders American sovereignty to an international body who's INTERPOL enforcement arm has already been elevated above the Constitution and American domestic law enforcement.

For an added and disturbing wrinkle, INTERPOL's central operations office in the United States is within our own Justice Department offices. They are American law enforcement officers working under the aegis of INTERPOL within our own Justice Department. That they now operate with full diplomatic immunity and with "inviolable archives" from within our own buildings should send red flags soaring into the clouds.

This is the disturbing context for President Obama's quiet release of an amended Executive Order 12425. American sovereignty hangs in the balance if these actions are not prevented through public outcry and political pressure. Some Americans are paying attention, as can be seen from some of the earliest recognitions of this troubling development here, here and here. But the discussion must extend well beyond the Internet and social media.

Ultimately, a detailed verbal explanation is due the American public from the President of the United States detailing why an international law enforcement arm assisting a court we are not a signatory to has been elevated above our Constitution upon our soil.


A frightening future - revisited

This post could be one of the most important that has ever appeared on this blog. It flew by unnoticed so I am linking back to it in the hope that more folks will see it and read it.


Read: The Day the Dollar Died


More globalist eco-crap

America's broke as hell, but Secretary of State Clinton offers $100 billion per year to help the third world address global warming!

This crap is a pure hoax designed to empower the UN, and rob money from the Western world. It also is designed to hobble the US even further, and our leftist Marxist leaders happily play right along.

As I have long stated: America is being sold out by her own politicians!

How Will They Confiscate Your Guns?

by John A. Sutter

For decades I have heard gun owners claim that the government would never be able to confiscate our firearms because the government would lose too many men. The implication being, of course, that gun owners would actively resist confiscation, even to the point of shooting back. But I believe this thinking is outdated and doesn’t align very well with reality. But before you tell me how big your honor guard in Hell will be when that day comes, let’s think about how the government could really do it.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, the government bans all civilian possession of firearms at the end of this month. Congress passes a total ban and the President cuts his own re-election throat by signing it. Gun owners get some grace period to turn them in, even beyond the deadline, without being charged with a crime. If we use Australia and Britain as examples there will still be a significant number of firearms that are not turned in. Some estimates put the Australian turn-in at less than 25% and the British faired only about 28%. But Australians and the British have long been used to obeying almost every gun control law. Not so the Americans. When laws are passed that we don’t like, we bite. We scratch. We vote. So here we sit after the guns have been collected and the amnesties have run out. Now what? Send out the personnel carriers, swat and shock troops to seize the guns from those militia “terrorists” who refused to turn them in? Don’t be silly.

The government has lots of records about you. If you purchased a firearm since 1968, chances are that they have some record of it somewhere. Most likely, it will take quite some time for them to compile all the serial numbers of “surrendered” guns (surrendered essentially at gunpoint) and cross off the ones you turned in. It’ll take more time for them to attempt to “clean up” their data. Say, about two years, maybe three. Add to that the hordes of people keypunching in hundreds of thousands of sales and registration records from hundreds of gun stores forced out of business. At some point the government decides they have something approaching a “good” database of unaccounted-for guns.

The next thing you’ll get from the government is an official looking notice that they think you still have a firearm. Their information will probably include all the information from registration forms, right down to the serial number. That notice will tell you that you’re in violation of the law, subject to prosecution and imprisonment. It will give you some period of time to surrender the gun. It will also give you a very limited number of days to return the form with an explanation of why you don’t have the gun, any proof you have, and your signature that the gun was lawfully disposed of. For many people the idea that the government “knows” they didn’t turn in that pistol or rifle and they have the detailed information about it will be enough to get them to surrender the gun. Some people will ignore the letter, others will scrawl a note that “I sold this in 1982 in a private sale”. After some time, the government will figure out how many guns are still out there and what the “compliance rate” is with the gun ban. More importantly, they’ll start sorting their database by the number of guns someone supposedly has “unaccounted”.

If you think they’ll come at these multiple-gun owners with a swat team, guess again. Their most likely tactic will be yet another letter (maybe two more) that generate what they’ll call “insufficient responses”. That means they can’t track a gun after you owned it. This they’ll use as fodder for a search warrant and/or perjury charges at a later date if they can. My guess is that the time between April and August will be a bad time for a lot of “former” gun owners. Remember that the BATF is an arm of the Treasury department and they control the IRS. You’ll probably get a notice in the mail that the IRS has some questions about your taxes or wants to audit you. When you make the appointment to visit the IRS they will pass that information to the BATF. While you are sweating over your deductions, the BATF and local police will execute a search warrant and search your home looking for guns. With you safely off site and distracted, essentially forced into “the royal presence” of the IRS they will snag your guns. Expect them to use slow-scan and ground penetrating radar to search walls, yards, under the patio or deck, the basement, etc. You might even find your hot tub has been drained and moved. Yes, they’ll search your car in the IRS parking lot too.

If you are one of the those people they suspect of having multiple guns and they don’t find any guns at your home, expect them to find and search storage facilities, safety deposit boxes and other places you might use. Warn your relatives who live nearby that they can expect a visit too, even (or perhaps especially) if they never owned a gun. If they are thorough, I’d expect the government agents to check your neighbors to see which of them previously owned a gun and perhaps search their homes, arguing that your neighbor could have held your guns while agents searched your home. Remember that at this point the government authorities don’t have much to fear from the general population. And by the time your complaints are run through the mill, rejected and turned into lawsuits, they’ll have changed the rules.

But you only have one gun you say? Fine. They won’t come looking for it. But they will make sure that possession of ammunition is also a serious crime. Don’t leave any loose cartridges around and where will you hide that case of ammo you rushed out to buy? Expect any “gun parts” to be made illegal at some point in time too. Spare magazines, maybe even old cleaning kits. Anything that says “gun” will be interpreted as “probable cause” to search your entire home. Also expect that you can never use that gun without becoming a serious felon in the eyes of the government. Even if some thug has repeatedly stabbed you with a large knife and threatened to rape your six year old daughter, they won’t forgive you for having the gun. They may even give you extra penalties for using it to save your family. Especially if you are one of the first few hundred people caught this way, they will use you to “set an example”. This will cause people to “bury” their guns away in hiding places, making them all but useless. If the government does come to confiscate it, you won’t be able to get to it fast enough and they will probably find it.

You’ve moved several times since you bought a gun? Remember showing your ID when you bought a gun? Remember writing down your place of birth? Why do you think the government has so many computers? Linking you to your new driver’s license in another state shouldn’t be too hard. Besides, the Treasury folks know where you work. Think you’re safe because you had unregistered guns? Think again. I would expect that the government’s database will contain a lot of old data. Some of it might indicate that a gun was sold to a resident at your address. If they can tie you to ammo sales or range use with your credit card in the previous 2 years you might get a surprise visit. Or that seller might have remembered you bought that gun from him and filled out his gun notice to get “off the hook” for that gun.

The point of this article is that by thinking in limited terms of a “raid” to confiscate guns we lose sight of the alternative methods the government can use. Put yourself in the government’s position and think of your own methods to avoid a conflict. Meanwhile, let’s ensure that every gun owner votes for gun rights this year and the next. You can think of a thousand excuses not to vote, not to help a campaign, not to help another gun owner register to vote. I can think of one important reason to do all of those.



Here's one to make the earth worshippers cringe!

100 Reasons why climate change is natural

School Homo Czar - Kevin Jennings

If you have children in a government mandated indoctrination center (commonly known as a public school), my first question to you is "WHY!"

But since you yourself may be a victim of years and years of government programming, I'll allow that your ignorance of reality might have clouded your judgment on these matters. It's time you educated yourself about what's being taught to your kids. And particularly under Obongo's new School "Safety Czar" Kevin Jennings.

First of all, he was the founder, and for many years, Executive Director of an organization called the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. These people are the tip of the spear for forcing the Gay Agenda into the minds of America's children. One of the methods they've chosen to further their perverted goals is the adoption of a reading list of books required for all government schooled children.

The folks over at (the people who blew the lid off the ACORN scandal) have done a wonderful job in drilling into this putried mess as well. Here's what they said about the books they selected at random from GLSEN's reading list:

Out of curiosity to see exactly what kind of books Kevin Jennings and his organization think American students should be reading in school, our team chose a handful at random from the over 100 titles on GLSEN’s grades 7-12 list, and began reading through.

What we discovered shocked us. We were flabbergasted. Rendered speechless.

We were unprepared for what we encountered. Book after book after book contained stories and anecdotes that weren’t merely X-rated and pornographic, but which featured explicit descriptions of sex acts between pre-schoolers; stories that seemed to promote and recommend child-adult sexual relationships; stories of public masturbation, anal sex in restrooms, affairs between students and teachers, five-year-olds playing sex games, semen flying through the air. One memoir even praised becoming a prostitute as a way to increase one’s self-esteem. Above all, the books seemed to have less to do with promoting tolerance than with an unabashed attempt to indoctrinate students into a hyper-sexualized worldview.

Here's an excerpt from one of the GLSEN books, a piece of pure smut entitled Reflections of a Rock Lobster:

My sexual exploits with my neighborhood playmates continued. I lived a busy homosexual childhood, somehow managing to avoid venereal disease through all my toddler years. By first grade I was sexually active with many friends. In fact, a small group of us regularly met in the grammar school lavatory to perform fellatio on one another. A typical week’s schedule would be Aaron and Michael on Monday during lunch; Michael and Johnny on Tuesday after school; Fred and Timmy at noon Wednesday; Aaron and Timmy after school on Thursday. None of us ever got caught, but we never worried about it anyway. We all understood that what we were doing was not to be discussed freely with adults but we viewed it as a fun sort of confidential activity. None of us had any guilty feelings about it; we figured everyone did it. Why shouldn’t they?
If you love and care for your children, and you're like me and DON'T want them learning this utter pervsion, then please do everything you can to a) help in removing this scumbag from his appointed office, and b) get your precious child OUT of the government schools!


Wreaths at Arlington Nat'l Cemetery

Arlington, Virginia (CNN) -- For Karen and Morrill Worcester, it's a campaign that blossomed out of a personal family tradition. But for the families of the fallen, it's a holiday tribute to remember the sacrifice of those who have given their lives in the armed services.

On Saturday, volunteers flooded the grounds at Arlington National Cemetery to take part in the annual wreath-laying ceremony sponsored by Wreaths Across America, a nonprofit organization born out of the Arlington Wreaths Project.

The husband and wife have been laying wreaths at the cemetery on their own since 1992, inspired by a visit Morrill paid to the landmark when he was a boy. Wreaths Across America began laying the decoration in 2006 and now places red-ribboned fir wreaths on veterans' gravestones across the country.

On this brisk December morning, volunteers huddled together at McClellan Arch.

"These are families here, they're not stones, they're not graves," said Karen Worcester, who acts as a spokesperson for Wreaths Across America. "This is our history, and we need to take that and teach that to our children. Our mission is to teach our children the value of freedom."



I settled the shotgun issue for all time

The father we both loved died nearly 22 years ago. And the old man owned an Eastern Arms shotgun that he purchased around 1934 for the princely sum of $10.00. It was a single-shot break-open 12 gauge with a 34 inch barrel. The front site bead was missing. The firing pin had to be pushed back in with your finger. The stock showed signs of burns from a campfire it sustained in the late 1930’s. And usually it came apart into two separate pieces when you broke it open. Oh and the fore-stock would fall off at the drop of a hat.

For these reasons, and out of respect for the memory of Dad, neither my brother nor I had fired it since his death. But that shotgun was his prized possession! Being of poor backwoods stock, that gun had spent long years putting meat on his family’s table. Daddy’s death elevated that old shotgun almost to the status of a holy relic in mine and my brother’s eyes.

When Daddy died, there was no argument between us over which one got his shotgun. Neither one of us needed it, but both of us coveted it. So thus began a twenty year odyssey of that shotgun moving back and forth from my house to my brother’s house - and back again. Each time I would visit him, I would pick up the shotgun as I made my way to door, and say something along the lines of “Well THIS is going home where it belongs!” No argument. And then the process would be reversed when Brother visited me. He’d come for a visit and leave with the shotgun; a smart-assed retort on his lips as he walked out the door. Again…no argument.

This ritual continued for upwards of fifteen years. But about five years ago my brother changed the rules of the game. As I got ready to leave his house to drive home one day, he handed me the shotgun and said “Son…this will end up in your hands one day soon anyway. I’d rather know that you had it, than take a chance on it getting away from us after I’ve gone.”

So for the last five years or so it has sat unmoved in my gun vault.

When my brother died last week, it occurred to me that I knew exactly what I wanted to do with that old shotgun. I called my sons from my brother’s house and asked that they bring the shotgun with them when they came for the funeral. And then I had a few quiet words with the funeral director off to one side. “This isn’t for presentation sake” I told him as I gave him the shotgun thru a side door. After all the family and friends had left the viewing room, and before they secured the casket, I had them put Daddy’s old shotgun inside. It was no one’s business there except for me and my brother.

I specified that the casket would not be opened at graveside, and so I confirmed with the funeral director that he’d done as I asked. With a big ole grin he said “Don’t you worry…I got it crooked in his arm just like he was heading out for the swamp.”

It made me feel good to think that Tuffy was going through the Pearly Gates with a shotgun in one hand, and a rebel flag in the other! I hope he enjoys hunting with Daddy over there on the other shore.



One of the side effects of being born to older parents is the fact that my only brother was almost 19 years older than I am. My mother had him by a previous marriage, but when she was pregnant with me, she and our father decided that he should have our surname so my dad adopted him. I was probably 12 years old before I learned all this.

That he was technically a half brother meant absolutely nothing as far as I was concerned, and my father felt the same way. His relationship with my father and I was every bit as strong as if he was my twin! I pretty much thought the sun rose and set in the palm of his hand. And he worshipped the ground my father walked on.

My brother’s first name was James, but when he was born it had been a difficult birth for both mother and child and he looked pretty bruised up. The nurse commented that he looked like he’d had to fight to get born and she pronounced him “a little Tuffy”. The name stuck – even if he personally hated it. Try as he might, everyone in the family knew him as Tuffy; everybody except me! I called him brother, and he called me “son”. Non-family members knew him as Jim.

The degree of mentoring and oversight I got from him was very akin to that given by a parent. He was involved in my life far more than your typical Big Brother. When I was preparing to join the Marines at the tender age of 17 – I discussed it with Brother first. When I decided I was going to marry the girl I was dating, I talked it over with Brother. Every major decision of my life, I ran it by him. In all things he was counselor, mentor, teacher, coach, confidante, and best friend.

For the last 48 years, except for the months I spent in boot camp or overseas, I talked to him by phone or email nearly every single day. There was one time in 1978 that he and I argued over something, and I didn’t speak to him for about a day. And then about two weeks ago he and I had some harsh words in an exchange of emails. Something I said must have really cut to the quick because he stopped taking my calls and refused to answer my emails. With him being in poor health I fretted that something bad might happen while we were feuding, and …well… it did.

Last week he had a lady friend from Canada visiting with him for a few days. He was adamant that no one else answer his phone if it rang, and so she was surprised Thursday morning around 9:45 when the phone rang and he didn’t pick it up. She went in to check on him and found him dead in bed of a heart attack.

I rushed up to Georgia that same day, and now I’ve done the crying, managed the funeral arrangements, and begun the process of settling his estate. But the business of making things right with the brother I dearly loved, must go undone until Judgment Day. The pain of losing him is made all the more bitter because of my foolishness and sharp tongue.

Know this my friends: Life is just too damn short to argue and fuss with people you love. Harsh words…once said…can never be un-said. They’re like nails driven into wood, even if pulled out – the holes remain! In the New Testament, James I believe, it says: For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appeareth for a little time and then vanishes away.

How true that is. How very true.



My only brother died unexpectedly this morning. It may be a while before I return.

In the meantime, keep praying for our nation.

And tell someone close to you that you love them.

Job 19:25-26

For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God

Quote of the Day

Boy this sure explains a lot!

"The fact is that liberty, in any true sense, is a concept that lies quite beyond the reach of the inferior man's mind. He can imagine and even esteem, in his way, certain false forms of liberty-for example, the right to choose between two political mountebanks, and to yell for the more obviously dishonest-but the reality is incomprehensible to him. And no wonder, for genuine liberty demands of its votaries a quality he lacks completely, and that is courage. The man who loves it must be willing to fight for it; blood, said Jefferson, is its natural manure. More, he must be able to endure it-an even more arduous business. Liberty means self-reliance, it means resolution, it means enterprise, it means the capacity for doing without."

H.L. Mencken

The whole WH gatecrasher nonsense put into its proper perspective!

Recent additions to the GunRights4US Library of Liberty


One heck of a good rant...

...can be found over at Galt's Gulch this morning. Sgt. Jarhead really nailed it!!!


WFT does the FBI need with a 20 mm canon?

Yeah... you read that right! Who exactly would be on the receiving end of such a weapon? Remember we a have a military just in case Russian tanks come rolling in.

Here's the source.

Quote of the Day

"Since this is an era when many people are concerned about 'fairness' and 'social justice,' what is your 'fair share' of what someone else has worked for?"

Thomas Sowell