Attention Michigan Handgun Owners

You know the annoying "safety inspection" you have to do whenever you purchase a handgun? You know, where you take the gun in to the police department and have them harass you and look at the gun to make sure the serial number is on it? Then you go and file the paperwork for the pistol in another part of the station?

Gun purchases are already highly scrutinized by state and federal authorities. This "safety inspection" isn't about safety at all. The cops conducting the inspection aren't trained gunsmiths, and the cops conducting the inspection have better things to do. Neither side - the gun owner or the cop - like these inspections, or see a need for them.

All this might stop, soon.

From NRA-ILA:

State Representative Paul Opsommer (R-93) has introduced legislation that seeks to repeal the required "safety inspection" for newly obtained handguns. House Bill 4490 would also require law enforcement agencies to destroy safety inspection records on file. Current Michigan law requires anyone who comes into possession of a pistol to take it to the police or sheriff’s department for a safety inspection. The requirement of a safety inspection is a burdensome waste of time for law-abiding gun owners and HB4490 will end that inconvenience.

HB4490 is expected to receive a hearing in the House Committee on Tourism, Outdoor Recreation, and Natural Resources soon. Please contact the members of the Committee and respectfully urge them to support passage of HB4490.

State Representative Joel Sheltrown (D-103), Committee Chair
(517) 373-3817
joelsheltrown@house.mi.gov

State Representative Kate Ebli (D-56), Majority Vice-Chair
(517) 373-2617
KateEbli@house.mi.gov

State Representative Tom Casperson (R-10, Minority Vice-Chair
(517) 373-0156
tomcasperson@house.mi.gov

State Representative Terry Brown (D-84)
(517) 373-0476
terrybrown@house.mi.gov

State Representative Ted Hammon (D-50)
(517) 373-3906
tedhammon@house.mi.gov

State Representative Kenneth Horn (R-94)
(517) 373-0837
kennethhorn@house.mi.gov

State Representative Kathleen Law (D-23)
(517) 373-0855
kathleenlaw@house.mi.gov

State Representative Steven Lindberg (D-109)
(517) 373-0498
stevenlindberg@house.mi.gov

State Representative Mike Simpson (D-65)
(517) 373-1775
mikesimpson@house.mi.gov

State Representative John Stakoe (R-44)
(517) 373-2616
johnstakoe@house.mi.gov

State Representative Howard Walker (R-104)
(517) 373-1766
howardwalker@house.mi.gov

Looks Like Hillary's Got the Nomination

Four Democratic presidential candidates — U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, U.S. Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) and former U.S. Sen. John Edwards — are withdrawing their names from Michigan's Jan. 15 Democratic Party primary.

The four Democratic candidates still on the Michigan ballot are U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd(D-Conn.), U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and U.S. Sen. Mike Gravel (D-Ala.).

Hillary's got it locked. No shock, but now it is as official as it can be before the Democratic convention.

Jimmy Carter vs. Jews

On this Yom Kippur, I thought it was appropriate to focus on Jimmy Carter's support of terrorism and dislike of the Jewish people.

Jimmy Carter's War Against The Jews

Warning - there are some graphic photos of carnage in the aftermath of terrorists attacks.

(h/t TFS Magnum)

C-FAM

While I am not Catholic, I've followed the work of C-FAM, the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, for the last twelve months.

C-FAM is a non-profit, non-partisan research and educational institute focusing on international social policy - and their mission, officially, "is to monitor the evolving international debate on social policy, and to assist governments at the UN and elsewhere to more deeply understand these difficult issues."

What that means is they highlight all the radical UN agenda, including the tremendous push for abortions and the World Socialists desire to impose gay "rights" on the entire world.

Every Friday, C-FAM's President, Austin Ruse, sends out an update on the organization's battles and victories. If you are interested, you can visit them on the web at C-FAM.org

Here is this week's update.

August 30, 2007 | Volume 10, Number 37
Dear Colleague,

C-FAM belives that one of the major engines pushing abortion at the UN and around the world are some of the governments of the European Union. C-FAM has determined that we will be focusing more of our attention on the European Institutions. Today we report on a Planned Parenthood abortioninitiative at the European Union.

Our reporter today is C-FAM policy analyist Maciej Golubiewski who is our chief EU strategist. Maciej is a multi-lingual Polish national who is finsihing his doctoral dissertation in internatinal affairs at Johns Hopkins University.

Spread the word.

Yours sincerely,

Austin Ruse
President

International Planned Parenthood Federation Launches a New Abortion Campaign in Europe

By Maciej Golubiewski

(BRUSSELS, BELGIUM – C-FAM) Using strongly anti-religious language, the European branch of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) has recently issued a document entitled "Why We Need to Talk about Abortion" calling for the legalization of abortion in the European Union (EU). While acknowledging that the member states retain “ultimate responsibility” for abortion legislation, the IPPF-Europe urges the EU Commission and the European Parliamentarians to act “despite this mandate” to “drive the issues forward” and “keep them high on the political agenda.”

The IPPF document praises the European Parliamentarians and the Council of Europe for issuing two non-binding pro-abortion documents in recent years. The document quotes something called the "Van Lancker Report" of the European Parliament, which calls for unrestricted abortion rights in Europe. IPPF also mentions the EU Commission’s support for the conclusions of the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD). Although the Cairo document makes no call for abortion, pro-abortion advocates claim that Cairo's call for "reproductive health" is synonymous with abortion, something the UN General Assembly never intended or voted for.

Throughout the text, the IPPF text targets the predominantly Catholic countries of Slovakia, Malta, Ireland, Portugal and Poland as specific examples where women are faced with “no other option than forced pregnancy,” unless they want to risk their lives through illegal abortion or to travel abroad to have it. “Unplanned pregnancy” is portrayed as a “shock,” leading to “clear-cut panic.” An aborted life is equated to an exercise of a woman’s right “to choose what to do with their bodies.”

The IPPF document also illustrates that abortion advocates believe that linking the pro-life cause with religion will help promote abortion rights. Slovakia is criticized for allowing doctors “conscientious objection” against performing abortion for religious reasons, IPPF has clearly taken sides in the debate about religious freedom in Europe. The IPPF document also includes a section called “Every abortion has a story” contains stories of women faced with an “unplanned or unwanted pregnancy” in six European countries. One story is of a Slovakian woman who aborts her child and is supposedly castigated by a Catholic priest during Sunday Mass, though there is no substantiation for such a claim. The story ends with her Catholic husband leaving her.

It should be noted that most countries of the European Union have more limitations on abortion than the United States where there is abortion on demand. Most European countries have fairly conservative gestational limits on abortion, and some EU countries ban abortion outright. While the European Institutions have repeatedly said that abortion lies outside their competence and should be left to the individual, this recent IPPF campaign shows that pro-abortion organizations consider the institutions of the EU as useful lobbying targets to put the “right to abortion” on the EU agenda.

Because the Legislature Said So

This commentary was written by Attorney Steve Dulan and featured in the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owner's newsletter. It's worth a read.

In a departure from our normal format, I'd like to discuss the recurring issue of the "why" behind firearms laws that comes up in so many of your questions that are submitted via the website. It is very common for a citizen to learn about some specific Michigan or U.S. statute that has to do with the regulation of firearms (sometimes the hard way) and then ask the question "Why is this the law?" The short answer that runs through my mind is a paraphrase of something that has probably been repeated by every generation of parents since humans invented language: "Because the legislature said so."

As the professor who teaches firearms law at the largest law school in the United States, and as someone who is often given the opportunity to discuss proposed laws with legislators and their staffs, I know that the real answer is more complex. Those of us who study law are often struck by the fact that most laws are basically responses to times in history when someone did something stupid or evil.

The history of gun law is no different. Someone does something horrible and a legislature reacts. The press essentially operates as a 4th branch of government by shaping public opinion, which in turn shapes voter behavior. Our elected representatives must respond to the will of the people, or find themselves looking for alternate employment.

For example., the first gun control law in the United States, the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed soon after the repeal of prohibition, which had led to the rise of Al Capone and other famous gangsters, many of whom used "Tommy Guns" in the commission of famous crimes such as the St. Valentine's Day Massacre in the 1920's. Coinciding with the debate in Congress preceding the NFA, there was a second wave of "organized crime" including famous names such as: John Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd, Baby Face Nelson and Bonnie and Clyde. All of whom were killed during 1934 by agents of Mr. Hoover's new FBI.

The National Firearms Act created a tax of $200 on machine guns, silencers, and, short-barreled shotguns and rifles. (The law was framed as a tax act due to the complex relationship between the federal government and the States under our Constitution.) By the time the law was passed, prohibition had been repealed, Capone was in prison, showing the early signs of dementia brought on by syphilis, and the infamous bank robbers of the early 1930's were mostly dead, and the FBI had become a fairly effective, modern force in the war on crime. In other words, by the time the law responded to the perceived need, it was essentially obsolete. It is still in place, and machine guns and sound moderators are still stigmatized and prohibited outright in some states.

Many of the laws currently on the books in Michigan were similarly the result of previous legislatures responding to perceived threats, news accounts, or specific tragedies. In our democracy, the law is the result of debate, bargaining, and negotiation between legislators. As we're all aware, there will always be some legislators who are opposed to private ownership of guns. They either honestly (and erroneously) believe that taking away our gun rights will make us more safe, or, they are simply pandering to public opinion in an effort to appear to be doing something about public safety. The result is often bad law. Some of that law is still on the books. In fact, until recently, gun control law was a one-way ratchet that only took away rights, never moving towards freedom and common sense, only away from it.

The MCRGO has been on the front lines of the turn-around. We can be proud of the fact that the pendulum of law is swinging back toward common sense due to the efforts of the members and leadership of the MCRGO. The entire organization is working daily toward tying up the loose ends that still exist, some of them very significant. But, keep in mind that our success depends on electing the right legislators and county prosecutors and on being successful in debate and in court. Interest groups like ours, and legislators, must constantly prioritize and remember that politics is the art of the possible and that law-making is an imperfect process that sometimes results in an imperfect product. So, ultimately, the answer to the question of "why" a particular law is on the books does boil down to: "Because the legislature said so."

Steven W. Dulan, J.D. is a member of the Bar in Michigan and Colorado, a member of the Board of Directors of the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners, an NRA Life Member, a former US Army Infantry Sergeant, a volunteer pre-deployment trainer of Squad Designated Marksmen for the Army Marksmanship Unit (AMU), Professor of Firearms Law at The Thomas M. Cooley Law School and Honor Graduate of the III Corps Armorer's School at Fort Hood, TX.

Could Lurch Have Been A Republican?

Absolutely hilarious stuff out of Slate:

Time for another peek at the trove of Nixon-era documents acquired by the National Archives this summer. In April 1971, on the lookout for new talent, Nixon political operative Murray Chotiner spotted great potential in John Kerry, a young Vietnam veteran who attracted nationwide attention when he testified against the war before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In a memo to Attorney General John Mitchell, Chotiner wrote that Kerry "could be an excellent candidate" for the Republicans.

Chotiner speculated that Kerry's patrician background might make him sympathetic to the GOP. "[H]e is a Yale graduate and inclined toward the 'establishment,' " Chotiner noted, and "has no use for the Democrats as such." Chotiner further observed that during the hearings, when Kerry "was asked the direct question of how he'd voted in 1968," Kerry replied that he hadn't voted at all, but if he had, "he would have voted for Nixon."

Bush vs. Kerry - that would have been some primary.

John Kerry - did he vote for the Republicans before he voted against them?

ACLU Targets Jesus - Again

Out of Louisiana:

A small southern Louisiana town is the latest battleground for a classic First Amendment showdown over the separation of church and state, pitting a feisty judge with a painting of Christ in his courthouse against the nation's top civil liberties group.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued Judge Jim Lamz of Slidell, La., earlier this month for refusing to take down a portrait of Jesus Christ above the words "To know peace, obey these laws" displayed in a courthouse lobby. The judge says he believes the picture is legal, and the mayor of the city — the mayor and the town are also named in the lawsuit — called the ACLU "America's Taliban."

The case began when a man walked into the Slidell courthouse earlier this year and saw the portrait, which has hung there for a decade.

The man, who is insisting on anonymity because of the nature of the case, is named in the suit as "John Doe."

John Doe? If the picture of Jesus is so offensive that you feel the need to file a lawsuit AGAINST A JUDGE, couldn't you at least use your real name?

You can read the rest here.

Which Republicans - if any -- Will Shoot Machine Guns At GOP Fundraiser?'

Great article, written by John Longnecker.

The problem with most Republicans is that they won’t stand up for what they stand for.

Let’s find out who is anatomically correct and who can reach around behind and locate their backbone.


I am speaking, of course, of the Republicans’ ability not to shoot their mouth off, but the inability to take sides. Candidates are not elected to be even-handed or to compromise – they are sent to Washington to be partisan, and right now, they stink at it.


This is a wonderful opportunity for Republicans to articulate what personal guns are all about and how they stand up for what guns are all about.


Gun Control and the repeal of all gun laws is conspicuously absent from the debates. Get it in the debates.


If they even understand. From reports of Rudy Giuliani’s stand on regulation of guns, it seems only one or two of them comprehends what the Founders had defeated and what they wrote to protect against forever. But who will show up to shoot a machine gun? I understand that one simply cannot.


The Fundraiser is a shoot August 5th in Manchester, New Hampshire, and it offers the chance to shoot machine guns, reportedly. The funny thing is that it’s not even about Guns – it’s about Liberty. Somebody take video for me.


Contact the Manchester Republican Committee at 603-867-6191. Praise to that Chapter for standing up for our values – Mainstream American values, as it turns out.


Toward this, I’ve donated some money to the cause so that, if Hizzoner Rudy Giuliani doesn’t attend, as reported in a news item which prompted this article, someone else can. In fact, five others can. I sent a paltry $125 for five 2008 Candidates to attend – you have to buy your own ammo – or, for the Fundraiser to pick someone else to take their place.


And the same must happen in Washington: If you don’t take the job, because you won’t take a position and stand behind it, then give up your seat and let someone else have it.


For cryin’ out loud, you’d think it was offensive or something to shoot a gun at a fundraiser. That’s some of that compromise and even-handedness. It’s a trap, of course, the liberals goad candidates into.


In fact, some of the Democrats – who are not anatomically incorrect and who are most partisan, can find their backbones and have no problem articulating their position. They’re wrong - Patriotism and understanding Original Intent is never in bad taste - but they have no problem enunciating that it is.


It’s a chance to learn more of what weapons are all about in this country, and for 2008 Candidates to show how much or how little they know. If they don’t understand what guns stand for, then they don’t understand who they work for, and are likely to wind up nonpartisan, ineffective and deaf.


Let me put it simply: Guns in this country are the legal and lethal force which backs citizen authority under our system. Any attack on weapons is a direct attack to undermine that citizen authority by undermining the force. There can be positively no law against this legal force backing your authority. there is no such thing as a sensible gun law. There simply isn’t any moral reason or legal reason good enough for undermining that force backing the authority of the electorate. With me so far?


Crime is one such way of undermining that force by say, political sway, convincing people that guns are bad, that resistance is bad, and that self-defense must somehow be excessive or in anger — which is how the Liberals constantly attack our way of life and authority through laws which haven’t worked, but that depends on your goals: they certainly work fine for increased political power. Now, I know you follow that.


In short, Americans are talked out of their liberty, and some of that talk is backed by official force – usually liberal force.


But does it reach criminals? Never has, so far, never will. Follow me?


The Founders hated such abuse of due process - Good Lord, they knew all about it - they wrote the law to forbid it forever when they recognized the citizen as supreme authority, and wrote that this legal force which backs our authority shall not be infringed.


One can criticise the Fundraiser Shoot as offensive, but it only reflects a poor understanding of what Gun in thic country are all about. Which explains why so many Democrats own weapons.


Let somebody else have your tickets. Let’s see if it’s constituents who take them.

End The Blather

An excellent editorial out of Toronto, Canada, by Michael Coren.

Another murder in a Canadian black community, this time the victim being 11-years old. And it took only moments for white liberal politicians to blame law-abiding handgun owners and, yes, the United States of America.

Handguns have to be banned, they cried, and American gun laws are too soft. This has to be a first. Canadian leftists blaming a murder in Toronto on President George W. Bush. Orders of Canada and CBC T-shirts all round.

Such drivel does not, however, explain how Norway, with one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world, manages to have one of the lowest crime rates.

Or how Israel, a society where guns are extraordinarily common, has so few criminal shootings.

Or how Britain with some of the most stringent gun control laws in the world has a violent crime rate that is virtually out of control.

It's too late to play silly games any more. If handguns are the cause of all this we have to ask why there are so few shootings in, for example, the Dutch, Ukrainian, Irish, Portuguese, Korean, Hindu or African communities. Why, in fact, there are so few shootings in any community outside of the West Indian and specifically Jamaican.

Oh Lord, the man must be mad. Silence him, stop him, call in a Human Rights Commission before it's too late!

Yet there is nothing racist about seeking answers that might save the lives of young black men and much that is racist about refusing to ask basic questions for fear that politically correct credentials be damaged.

Read the rest here.

The Evolution of American Foreign Policy

I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.
John Adams, circa 1770







Give me liberty or give me death.
Patrick Henry, circa 1776








War - An act of violence whose object is to constrain the enemy, to accomplish our will.
George Washington, circa 1790








The American continents... are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.
James Monroe, circa 1817







America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Abraham Lincoln, circa 1861









Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far.
Teddy Roosevelt, circa 1900







Sixteen hours ago an American airplane dropped one bomb on Hiroshima...The force from which the sun draws its powers has been loosed against those who brought the war in the Far East.
Harry S Truman, circa 1945

The Soviet Union does not have to attack the United States to secure domination of the world. It can achieve its ends by isolating us and swallowing up all our allies.
Harry S Truman, circa 1951





Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
John F. Kennedy, circa 1961




Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have.
Ronald Reagan, circa 1982

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
Ronald Reagan, circa 1987







America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
George W. Bush, circa 2004









The war in Iraq is lost!
Harry Reid, circa 2007








This war has been a tragedy and a grotesque mistake.
Nancy Pelosi, circa 2007

I bring a message of peace from Syria.
Nancy Pelosi, circa 2007





The fact is, this is a very bad situation...This is an utter disaster. This worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States.
Al Gore, circa 2007







Our message to the President is clear. It is time to begin ending this war -- not next year, not next month -- but today... the right strategy before the surge and post-escalation is the same: start bringing home America's troops now.
Hillary Rodham (Clinton), circa 2007


You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work.
Barack Obama, circa 2007










The President is guilty. He has committed war crimes.
Cindy Sheehan, circa 2007

Ms. Pelosi must do her Constitutional and moral duty by July 23 (impeach President Bush)
Cindy Sheehan, circa 2007

What are You?

I saw this on Patrick's site, Born Again Redneck Yogi, and couldn't resist clicking. I am a libertarian conservative, or in fancier language, an anti-government gunslinger (although I'm not anti-government, I'm simply anti-unconstitutional government).

My Conservative Identity:

You are an Anti-government Gunslinger, also known as a libertarian conservative. You believe in smaller government, states’ rights, gun rights, and that, as Reagan once said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”

Take the quiz at www.FightLiberals.com

This is no surprise. Many, many years ago - before the dawn of daily Internet use (GASP! - it used to be the exclusive domain of scientists and the military) - I took The World's Smallest Political Quiz. It may be hard for today's youth to believe this, but we used to read and write things on paper.

Anyways, I haven't changed too much. This is what I was classified as:

No Guns

From my lovely home city of Detroit:

Seeking the attention of presidential candidates taking part in the NAACP national convention, concerned parents and activists said that they plan to conduct a “lie-in” today to protest weak gun laws, particularly on college campuses.

Thirty-two volunteers clad in black and representing the 32 people killed in a shooting rampage at Virginia Tech earlier this year will participate in the event at 11:45 a.m. outside of Cobo Hall. Activists hope to draw attention to how easy it is to buy a gun in America and force the next president to address the issue.

The protest is one of a nationwide series organized by Virginia resident Abigail Spangler to honor the Virginia Tech victims and help their loved ones. [...]

First of all, what "weak gun laws, particularly on college campuses"? Campus security is all about "feeling safe" - not actual safety. And lest the protesters forget, guns are already banned from most college campuses. Murder is already illegal, too. In fact, I am pretty sure it is illegal in all 50 state and in DC. So since there is already gun control on campus, why push for gun control on campus - I mean, unless there are other agendas?

By the way, gun control, or for that matter "campus safety", doesn't deter rapists, does it? No. Rape is an epidemic on college campuses, both date rape and run-of-the-mill standard thugs. And they don't use guns. Of course, colleges protect the "right" of students to get high or drunk all they want, even though these actions contribute to so many times to sexual assaults.

And is it easy to buy a gun? There are already 20,000 gun laws on record.

Live Earth - a Success or Flop?

I know that few people ever gave a rat's back end about this subject to begin with, and of those few, only a small percentage even care about any follow-up. But in case you are one of those people...

"Live Earth" was dead weight for NBC this weekend.

The three-hour prime-time telecast of the event, designed to raise awareness of climate-change issues, drew just 2.8 million viewers to the network. It was the least watched show among the major broadcast networks Saturday night, trailing repeats of Fox's "Cops," which averaged 4.2 million, and "America's Most Wanted" (4.7 million), and ABC's broadcast of the 2001 movie "Monsters, Inc." (3.4 million).

NBC's telecast included live coverage of musical acts at New Jersey's Giant's Stadium as well as taped bits from concerts around the globe.

But the news was not all bad for "Live Earth" organizer Al Gore, according to ratings spinmeisters at NBC Universal: 19 million people watched at least six minutes of the concerts that aired throughout the day on its networks NBC, Bravo, CNBC and Telemundo. (Nielsen does not measure ratings for Sundance Channel, which also televised the concert.)

Bravo's 18 hours of coverage, beginning at 9 a.m., averaged 740,000 viewers, double what the network usually brings in on a Saturday, and peaked at 9 p.m. with an audience of 1.3 million.

Many television sets were dormant this past holiday week as indicated by the historically low ratings for the broadcast networks. [...]

And

In all, users streamed 30 million videos of Live Earth concert footage on MSN live and on-demand as of Monday morning, said Rob Bennett, GM of entertainment, video and sports at MSN.

Bennett also said that with 237,000 users logged on around midday Saturday, MSN's Live Earth webcast broke the record for most simultaneous viewers of an online entertainment event. The previous record was 175,000 streaming users for Live 8 on AOL.

Bennett said that the on-demand offering of the concert will be available for 90 days and should account for a "majority of the streams" when all the numbers are crunched. He did not have a specific projection but said that the company would provide a recap of the available data at week's end. [...]

Again, while I'd be thrilled with such results, these are paltry compared to the 2 billion viewers that Live Earth believed would tune in.

The real test will be if any viewer actually take any action because of these concerts. Anyone who's been in charge of recruiting people for any kind of activity knows that it is hard to spur anyone to action. And let's face it - the current generation of rock fans are more apathetic than previous generations. This isn't the 60s, and this wasn't Woodstock. If you go to an Eagles concert (who didn't perform at Live Earth), chances are Don Henley would make some plea to get involved in some kind of political or social action - and chances are tmany fans would get involved. But subtract a few decades to the fan base and the activism just isn't there. You can't tell me Kelly Clarkson, Ludacris, and The Smashing Pumpkins have a fan base as political or socially active as Don Henley's.

And because someone likes an artist's music, it doesn't mean they vote the way that artist would vote. I like Pink Floyd and I like The Police, but that doesn't mean I have the same political views as Roger Waters or Sting.

Live Earth was DOA

Were you watching the LIVE EARTH concerts this weekend? No? Apparently lots of people had more important things to do Saturday. While exact figures are not yet available, it looks like somewhere around 100 million people saw at least portion of a concert on the web, TV, or live. Those aren't shabby viewing figures, but much less than the 2 billions viewers claimed by SOS, the sponsoring organization.

The LiveEarth website claims a lofty goal:

Live Earth marks the beginning of a multi-year campaign led by the Alliance for Climate Protection, The Climate Group and other international organizations to drive individuals, corporations and governments to take action to solve global warming. Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore is the Chair of the Alliance and Partner of Live Earth.

While it sounds like the actual goal is socialism, it seems clear that the success or failure of the concerts doesn't hinge on the number of viewers - it relies on what actions viewers will take now that they've been enlightened by music, socialist performers, and heavy use of the "f" word.

Live Earth has been branded a foul-mouthed flop.

Organisers of the global music concert - punctuated by swearing from presenters and performers - had predicted massive viewing figures.

But BBC's live afternoon television coverage attracted an average British audience of just 900,000.

In the evening, when coverage switched from BBC2 to BBC1, the figure rose to just 2.7 million.

And the peak audience, which came when Madonna sang at Wembley, was a dismal 4.5 million. Three times as many viewers saw the Princess Diana tribute on the same channel six days before.

Two years ago, Live 8 drew a peak television audience of 9.6million while Live Aid notched 10million in 1985.

The BBC blamed the poor figures on Saturday's good weather and said its Wimbledon tennis coverage had drawn away afternoon viewers.

Critics said however that the public had simply snubbed what they saw as a hypocritical event.

Musicians including Bob Geldof, Roger Daltrey and the Pet Shop Boys pointed out that a concert highlighting climate change had itself generated huge carbon emissions.

Performers were criticised for flying to concerts that were staged simultaneously on seven continents.

The BBC's coverage, which ran for 15 hours from 12.30pm on Saturday to 4am yesterday, also sparked dozens of complaints about bad language.

The swearing started at 1.30pm when Phil Collins, the first act on in London, used the f-word while singing with his band Genesis.

Razorlight singer Johnny Borrell used the same expletive a few minutes later in one of his songs. And Chris Rock swore while introducing fellow comic Ricky Gervais, who soon followed suit.

[...]

A BBC spokesman said: "We asked artists not to swear but sometimes they get carried away. We are very sorry for any offence caused."

And, as Patrick over at Born Again Redneck Yogi posted, the South Africa concert didn't draw a crowd:

Officials at LIVE EARTH Johannesburg have blamed the effects of climate change for poor audience attendance at Saturday's (07Jul07) South African event. Organiser John Langford believes extremely cold weather in the region - it snowed last week (ends06Jul07) for the first time in a quarter of a century - kept people away from the concert...

Of course, those evil capitalists had to get their hands into this green event, really ticking off Greenpeace - and rightly so. For a concert sponsored by a bunch of socialists, I can't imagine anything worse than a global corporation using this concert to make money off of their pseudo-green automobile. And to pour salt on the wound, Daimler now has, by virtue of association with this event, a big, green "get out of jail free" card when the green community protests automobiles, auto companies, and manufacturing in general.

Environmental pressure group Greenpeace is up in arms over the fact that auto giant DaimlerChrysler is the main sponsor for the Live Earth concert taking place in Germany on Saturday.

The concerts themselves are supposed to highlight the sorry state of the planet and the increasing damage that the human race is doing to the environment. But the Live Earth shows which will take place around the world this Saturday are under fire due to the German event being sponsored by a major automotive company.

Environmental pressure group Greenpeace is livid that the Live Earth concert in Hamburg will be broadcast to the world with the name of DaimlerChrysler splashed all over it. The fact that Daimler manufactures large, pollution-spewing automobiles, Greenpeace claims, means that a more inappropriate sponsor than the car giant would be hard to find.

Greenpeace are also angry that the company's Smart car is the official vehicle of the Live Earth artists and models are being used at the Hamburg gig to ferry stars such as Colombian singer Shakira around. The environmentalists claim that the car isn't even environmentally friendly as it can only carry two people.

Democrat Blogger wants to Kill Rush and Nugent

I can't get over how much hatred so-called peace-loving Democrats have.

A Democratic Party blogger says he wants to shoot Rush Limbaugh and is calling for volunteers to assassinate rock star Ted Nugent, who champions the Second Amendment.

[...]

"How we can remain 'civil' in the face of this is beyond my ken," wrote Williams. "I will only reiterate what I've said WHEN they manage to inevitably push their litany of hatespeak into actual bloodletting, and full-blown civil war (for there is no other place that this hatred of American against American can go), well ... I've got dibs on Rush, as soon as it's legal and lawful to shoot him. Whoever wants Ted Nugent is welcome to him, but I would prefer that you would call it now, so as to conserve on ammunition. We will need to manage it prudently. But when the day comes that they have finally set brother against brother, and sister against sister in the name of their pocketbooks, I won't approach exterminating them with anything approaching remorse. They've already told me what they think of me, of my friends and of my peers. Now, I'm returning the favor. Put that in your pipe and have the WSJ editorial staff show you how to smoke it, Nugent. Courage."

Ok, that's freaky, although I don't think Ted Nugent would have any problem defending himself from some loony attack.

Please Pay Attention to Me

Will Sheehan ever get tired of cheap publicity stunts? Imagine the pain of having to cheer Nancy Pelosi in a primary election.

Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a slain soldier whose attacks on President George W. Bush made her a darling of the antiwar movement, has a new target: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Sheehan, who announced in late May that she was leaving the peace movement, said she will run against Pelosi unless the congresswoman moves to oust Bush in the next two weeks.

“I think all politicians should be held accountable,” Sheehan said Sunday. “Democrats and Americans feel betrayed by the Democratic leadership. We hired them to bring an end to the war.”

Sheehan said she will run as an independent against the San Francisco Democrat in 2008 if Pelosi does not file articles of impeachment against Bush by July 23. That’s when Sheehan and her supporters are to arrive in Washington, D.C., after a 13-day caravan and walking tour starting from the group’s war protest site near Bush’s ranch in Crawford.

Although Sheehan has never held public office, she said she already has the name recognition and would not have to run against Pelosi in a primary.

I hate to see Nancy Pelosi happy, but she must find this entire charade amusing. What could be better publicity than kicking Sheehan's butt in a primary election?

Press Release

Along with many other gun bloggers, I've decided that August 28, 2007 is "Support Your Local Gunshop Day" in the United States.

In a related story, Jesse Jackson announced he will organize a national day of protest in 25 cities on Aug. 28, 2007, to rally support for legislation to restrict gun sales.

"Our marching does not kill people; people who buy guns from gun shops kill people," Rev. Jackson said.

Actually, statistics show it isn't people who buy guns from gun shops that kill people - it's people who don't buy their guns from gun shops (that means lawless thugs, Rev. You know, criminals). Which is why "restricting gun sales" won't work to lower violence.

Words to Remember This Independence Day

It was only 1,337 words long - not even 4 full pages of text by our modern standards. Yet, those few simple, clear words were worth fighting and dying for. If the revolution failed the brave men who signed the document were signing their execution papers.

Even if the Revolution succeeded, they were risking everything - their lives, their security, their families, their honor, their wealth, their land, their homes.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

What were those causes "which impel them to the separation"?

In short, Liberty.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Government had a holy and honorable mandate:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

and when the government abused power or failed to secure these rights from the people, the people had a responsibility to intervene:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

These men were not rebels for the sake of stirring up trouble. Most were loyal British subjects, until the British government under King George III and a hostile Parliament failed and abused them one to many times.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

To prove it's case to the world and to posterity, these are the charges laid against the King. First and foremost, he is a tyrant.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

Next, he disregards all legal leadership among the colonists.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has kept the legal population down and inhibited citizenship.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has corrupted the judicial system and placed his cronies in charge to routinely keep citizens from enjoying their rights.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He abuses British colonial citizens by using the British armed forces against them

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has conspired to make up the law as he sees fit.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

Homes are illegally seized for military occupation and headquartering (necessitating the 3rd Amendment after the Bill of Rights was drawn up years later):

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

He has denied the citizens a way to earn a living and punished them without due process of law.

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

And in general, the King has declared a de facto war against the colonial citizenry through his actions.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

Because of these abuses, and the refusal to right the wrongs - even the refusal to listen to the complaints of the wronged - the colonies must divorce themselves and exist as their own legal entity.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

This document is our country's birth certificate, born on the 4th of July, 1776. Yet, if we take a look at the reasons for the establishment of this land, we see that current government looks much like the British tyranny the Founding Fathers' fought against. From actions against the citizens, there is not much difference between the government of King George III and the government of George W. Bush.

This 4th of July, let's resolve to re-read the words of the Declaration - it only takes a few minutes, but those few minutes will remind us that government is supposed to serve the people, not the other way around.

England... Land of the Anti-Self-Defense Clowns

This lovely news out of England - but several Republicans and Democrats want to import it here as soon as possible.

First the story, then some analysis.

A shopkeeper has been fined £250 and given a criminal record because he fought back when he was attacked by shoplifters.

Jacob Smyth chased three youths out of his hardware shop in Penzance, Cornwall, when he was set upon. When he was kicked in the groin by one of the hooded youths who had stolen cans of spray paint Mr Smyth hit back.

Police issued fixed penalty tickets to the shoplifters but charged Mr Smyth and a colleague with assault.

Yesterday he pleaded guilty to assault at Truro Magistrates’ Court. He claimed after the hearing that he had been advised to plead guilty because otherwise he could have faced a six month prison sentence.

The court was told that Mr Smyth, a father of three, caught the youths stealing the spray cans in October last year. Two of them turned on him and he was kicked in his groin just weeks after a vasectomy operation. He retaliated and punched 18-year-old Craig Spiller to the ground.

Paul Gallagher, defending, said: “The court can only imagine what they intended to do with that spray paint. He could see the cans poking out of their pockets. He leant forward to get them and at that stage he was set upon.

“He did punch one of them to get him off. In the heat of the moment he kicked him once or twice. Initially he was acting in self defence. Frustration at the situation took over. The lads were interviewed and given fixed penalty notices by police but unfortunately for Mr Smyth ended up in court today.

“He was the one who was trying to do the right thing and get his stolen property back.”

Julian Herbert, prosecuting, said the “aggravating factor” of the case was shop staff “taking the law into their own hands”. Fining Mr Smyth £250 and ordering him to pay £43 costs, Angy Haslam, chairman of the magistrates, said: “The act was aggravated by the fact you kicked the victim on the ground. We feel it has been mitigated because you acted in self defence.”

Speaking outside court, Mr Smyth said: “I did nothing wrong. I was getting a good beating from this lad. I had no choice but to defend myself.

“We get shoplifters all the time one after the other. We call the police but nothing is ever done. We called them on this occasion and ran after the lads to try and get my property back but then they turned on us. “Am I not allowed to protect my stock and premises from thieves?”

Mr Smyth’s colleague Jason Pascoe, 34, has also been charged with two counts of common assault and will appear in court at a later date.

I don't really know what to say, other than what is it about governments that want a bunch of passive, crime-accepting citizens? Shame on those in the British anti-self-defense movement.

Second, the comments online (as of writing this post) are quite favorable (or should I write "favourable" since we are talking about Britain) to the shopkeeper and against the foolish government actions. The British take a lot of heat from the American pro-gun and pro-self-defense community. Stuff like this shows how much the citizenry realizes they have a right to self-defense, a right their government is denying them. Their leadership has betrayed them, sold them a "feel good" bill of goods that sounds good, but doesn't work. Sound familiar here in the USA?

Third, this kind of thinking is all over the USA as well. The Castle Doctrine laws, in part, are a response to this kind of anti-self-defense blatherskite. How ironic and tragic that the idea - a man's home is his castle - comes out of the English system.

Councilman Points "Gun" at Members in Meeting

I wish my city council meetings were this interesting. I have a point in sharing this anecdote, too, below the story.

L.C. Bulger III watched in mounting horror as a 10-year-old trained a chrome pistol first at his companion's head, then on a group of boys just down the Saginaw sidewalk.

Clad in his Sunday best, Bulger sprinted off his doorstep on the city's East Side toward the child gunslinger.

As he drew nearer and hollered for him to stop, Bulger saw the boy's friend had a gun of his own. Both boys whirled.

"They quickly put the guns in their belts and put their shirts over it," recalls Bulger, a 41-year-old special education paraprofessional, who confiscated the guns.

"But the way they turned around, that could have been pretty deadly if I was someone with a weapon, or an officer."

The guns were fakes but looked as real as any 9mm on the street, says Bulger, part of the Parishioners on Patrol effort to confront violence by roaming city streets at night.

It was Bulger's run-in, shortly before noon two Sundays ago, that prompted fellow anti-violence activist and Saginaw City Councilman Amos O'Neal's dramatic stunt at last week's City Council meeting.

Using the same kind of toy Bulger took from the boy, O'Neal stunned colleagues by whipping the silver replica from his belt, pointing it at the city manager and panning the council chambers with the glinting barrel.

Some people ducked or hunkered down. Others backed up. Only the mayor, the city manager and a police lieutenant in the audience were in on the real story.

Councilman Bill Federspiel, who works as a police officer in Saginaw Township, criticizes O'Neal for pointing the device at people and says that as an officer, he would have drawn his gun had O'Neal's behavior turned any more bizarre.

Although the point of the story is that Saginaw is banning "realistic-looking" toy guns. In fact, the Michigan House is getting in on the act.

"These guns look unbelievably real when they're modified," said freshman State Rep. Andy Coulouris, who helped prosecute a few toy gun cases in his days as a Saginaw County assistant prosecutor.

Coulouris is co-sponsor of House Bill 4892, which could criminalize what the 10-year-old did with the toy.

The law would make it a misdemeanor to remove the telltale orange cap from the toys and a four-year felony to use a replica to threaten or intimidate.

Federal law requires that imitation guns come with an orange plug or likewise marker, but the rule does not apply to non-imitation traditional water, paint ball, BB or pellet guns.

Usually, this is where I would rip on politicians... but I think they are on to something with this one. I'd place realistic-looking toy guns in the same category as an unloaded real gun used in a crime, in that they create a genuine fear-for-life among people they are used on, and hence, justify a self-defense action, be it either from police or a law-abiding citizen. And Michigan has seen a few cases of unloaded weapons or fake weapons used in crimes this year - with the result being a dead perp after a police shoot-out.

Now, I am not for banning toy guns, but in my childhood, you couldn't confuse my cap gun with Dad's .45. I'm sure a lot of you will disagree with my assessment, and that's fine. But I do think the politicians have a point on this one.