Archive for September, 2010


September 20, 2010


The name of the organization shall be Berks County Patriots.

Mission Statement: Berks County Patriots is a non-profit, non-partisan political action group committed to restoring and promoting the conservative values and ideals espoused in America’s founding documents; that “we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights” including life, liberty, property, free speech, a free market, and the pursuit of happiness, and that a limited government is necessary to ensure these rights for the people.


1. Membership shall consist of anyone completing a membership form and/or submitting contact info. It is our desire to be all inclusive and encourage all to become members.

2. Members shall be responsible for: supporting the organization, attending meetings, abiding by the bylaws, and adhering to the guiding principles and values of the organization.

3. Members shall have the right to vote in person at meetings, be eligible to run for and be elected to the Board of Directors, (BOD) hold an office on the BOD, serve on a committee and receive regular communications from the BOD.



1.      For the purposes of guiding individual and group conduct, as well as maintaining clear focus on organizational goals, Berks County Patriots adopts as general beliefs and guidelines these Principles and Values.  Rigid belief in or adherence to these ideals by individuals is not in any way required for membership, however these should be encouraged throughout the membership and promoted by the actions of the Board of Directors.




1. The Board of Directors shall serve without pay and consist of as many as 11; 9 officers and 2 board members at-large.  There shall also be 2 non-voting participants appointed to the board; a parliamentarian, and a chaplain.
2. Eligibility- They must be a member of Berks County Patriots in good standing for a period of six (6) months, and cannot presently hold a state or federally elected office.

3. All Board members will have voting privileges and serve 2 year terms with the first term ending December 31, 2010 (except for the first year’s election cycle to establish staggering – see section VII-5)
4. The Board shall elect officers from amongst its ranks each year after an election, any mid-year officer vacancies shall be filled by the board from amongst their at-large board members.

5. Board meetings will be held at least 1 time per calendar month.
6. Special Board meeting may be called with 50% plus 1 vote may be taken by Phone or Email.

the BOD will consist of the below-mentioned officers at this time.

1.      Chairman
2.  Vice Chairman
3.  Treasurer
4.  Financial Secretary
5.  Membership Chairman
6.  Public Relations Chairman
7.  Events Chairman
8.  IT Chairman
9.  Unity Chairman

10.  Recording Secretary


Officer Job Descriptions:

1) The Chairman is responsible for running the Board meetings and general membership meetings according to Robert’s Rules of Order.  He will be available to assist other board members on joint projects as necessary. The chairman is the mediator if conflict arises between board members.  The chairman has no voting privileges except as a tiebreaker.  The Chairman must make himself familiar with Robert’s Rules of Order. The Chairman will be in possession of a sealed envelope containing all access information for all BCP websites. This envelope is only to be opened if something happens to the IT Chairman to prevent him from performing his duties, it shall take a 3/4 vote to remove the IT Chairman and open the envelope.

2) The Vice Chairman will assist the Chairman in his duties and shall succeed the Chairman in the event of absence, removal or resignation.  The vice-Chairman does have voting privileges except when acting as Chairman. Vice Chairman must make himself familiar with Robert’s Rules of Order. The Vice-Chair shall oversee the election, education, and legislative committees.

3) The Treasurer is ultimately responsible for all monies coming into and going out of the organization.  He/she shall produce monthly financial reports for the Board and quarterly financial reports for the membership.  The Treasurer must be involved with the counting of all monies collected at events and shall keep collection records signed by the Financial Secretary and either Chair or Vice Chair to be included in the financial reports.  The Treasurer shall also be the required signer on a bank account which requires two signatures; the Financial Secretary, Chairman and Vice Chairman shall also be on the account. All monies collected at meeting will be counted immediately by no less than 2 people with one observer.

4) The Financial Secretary shall be responsible for the organizations checkbook and all bank statements and expenditure reports which he will make available to the treasurer to be reconciled on a monthly basis.  The Financial Secretary must be involved with counting of monies collected during events, and sign off on the collected amounts with the Treasurer.  The Financial Secretary is also charged with organizing all fundraising efforts.
5) The Membership Chairman shall maintain an up to date list of the membership complete with names, email & home addresses, phone numbers, and volunteer availability. This complete list will be made available to the Chairman & Vice Chairman of the Board and The IT Chairman only.  Partial lists shall be made available to Committee Chairs as necessary.  The member list will at no time be made public.  Membership Chair is also responsible for overseeing the phone bank.
6) The Event Chairman is responsible for planning and coordinating events such as; general meetings, local rallies, bus trips and cooperative efforts with other like-minded organizations.  The Events Chairman will be in charge of scheduling, arranging transportation and security, and arranging payments for events. All events sponsored by Berks County Patriots must be approved by the board.

7) The Public Relations Chairman is responsible for coordinating, editing and overseeing all communications from the organization to outside contacts.  The PR Chair shall oversee the newsletter production, video productions, and press releases as needed.  The PR Committee is responsible for outreach efforts to non-political but like minded organizations to present our efforts to promote our vision and mission statements.

8) The Unity Chairman is responsible for contacting and maintaining positive working relationships with other like-minded groups. They will report any new contacts to the board which shall vote upon continued cooperative alliances with these groups; the Unity Chair will then be authorized to initiate action alerts to support approved allies without a BOD vote. The Unity Chair must work closely with events chair to coordinate co-sponsored events.  The Unity Chair shall oversee the Precinct Project and other similar efforts that require broad support from the movement at large.

9) IT Chairman is responsible developing and maintaining the website as the primary tool for the dissemination of essential group information (meetings, events, actions, articles, etc.)  In addition to the IT Chair, the passwords to the website shall be placed in a sealed envelope to be given to the Chairman to be opened and utilized only if absolutely necessary and only with the approval of ¾ of the entire active board which must be present.  Upon the election of a new board, the passwords shall pass appropriately from the outgoing IT Chair to the incoming IT Chair.

10) The Recording Secretary shall prepare the minutes of all Board of Director and general membership meetings. The Secretary shall forward copy to all Board Members via email at least a week before the next meeting. The use of an electronic recording device is recommended for accuracy, retaining the tapes for a period of 1 year. The secretary shall serve for a period of 1 year.

Appointed Job Descriptions:

1) The Parliamentarian shall report to the Chairman of the Board, function as a non-interventionist, and assist and support the Chairman in maintaining order and adhering to time schedules as approved by the Board or membership.  The parliamentarian shall assist with the coordination of motions and resolutions as requested and be available to the membership during normal conference hours or after meetings to answer questions about the role and function of the parliamentarian and parliamentary procedure.  He/she shall also assist with the election and voting procedures and serve as the vice chair of the election committee.  This is a non-voting board position.

2) The Chaplain shall provide for the pastoral needs of the membership.  Specifically, the chaplain assists members to understand more fully life’s events as they relate to their spiritual and emotional well-being.  The chaplain shall also offer blessings and coordinate the prayers and petitions to the almighty that are conducted at group functions where applicable.  This is a non-voting board position.

Board officers shall serve as the chairs of standing committees and deliver periodic reports to the Board.  Committee Chairs must also provide complete and up to date lists of committee participants.  The board of directors may appoint ad hoc committees as needed.

1. Board meetings will be held at least 1 time per calendar month with a minimum notice of at least 3 days, and shall be closed unless announced otherwise.
2. General Membership meetings will be held on the 3rd Thursday of each month or by the call of the board.

3. The Nomination Meeting will be held the second Thursday in November and the Election Meeting will be held on the second Thursday in December
4. Special meetings may be held anytime the chairman or the majority of the board calls for one.
5. Agenda’s must be provided at least 2 days in advance for board meetings and the day/night of the membership meeting. Members on the email list may be provided agendas before the meeting.


1. The Board shall be responsible for endorsing political candidates whose views and platforms support and advance the goals and mission of the Berks County Patriots.  It shall be the intent of the organization to generally withhold endorsements unless a candidate has and continues to demonstrate a commitment to freedom, limited government, and constitutional purity.

2. Only after extensive investigation of the proposed endorsee and due deliberation amongst the board members, a ¾ majority vote is required to officially endorse a candidate for public office.


1. A majority of 50% plus 1 board members constitutes a quorum.  In absence of a quorum, no formal action shall be taken except to adjourn the meeting to a subsequent date.

2. Passage of a motion requires a simple majority, i.e. 1 more than ½ the members present
3. No quorum requirements exist for general membership or election meetings

1. Members may be removed from the board or the organization as a whole for conduct detrimental to the organization and/or gross violation of the bylaws.

2. A board member can be removed for cause by a 3/4 majority vote of the board and the required approval from the chairman of the board.

3. The chairman of the board can be removed by the board by a vote of “no confidence” by 3/4 majority vote.  The chairman cannot cast a vote in, block a motion for, or overrule a “no confidence” motion or decision.  The chairman is immediately removed with the vice-chair assuming the responsibilities of the chair.

4. A member can be removed from a general meeting for disruptive conduct detrimental to the meeting or group by a ruling of the chair or a simple majority vote of the board members in attendance.

5. A member can be removed from the organization as a whole by a ¾ majority of the board.  The member can appeal the board’s decision to the membership only once, and only at the next general meeting, who can reinstate the member by a simple majority vote immediately after the meeting has opened.

6. Any member of the board who has a financial, personal, or official interest in, or conflict (or
appearance of conflict) with any matter pending before the board, of such nature that it
prevents or may prevent that member from acting on the matter in an impartial manner, will
offer to the board to voluntarily excuse him/herself and will vacate his seat and refrain from
discussion and voting on such item.

7. Should a board member develop a conflict with the organization or its various goals and interests, that board member ought to resign from their board position.  If such a conflict is concealed and discovered, there shall be an immediate motion and vote for removal of the conflicted member from the board.
1. Nominations may begin the first day in November by phone call, Email or U.S. Mail to the chairman of the elections committee. Nominations will close on November 30.
2. It is the responsibility of the nominating entity to ensure that their intent is communicated to the chairman of elections.  Self-nominations are permitted.

3. All prospective board members must have their contact & vital information available to be displayed on the BCP Website.

4. Elections will be held the second Thursday Night in December at a 6:30 PM meeting.  The eligible nominees with the highest vote counts will assume the vacated positions and constitute a new board of directors on the New Years Day following the election.

5. Each new board is then responsible for deciding the election of board members to officer positions at their first annual board meeting after the New Year, and then presenting those officers to the membership at the first annual general meeting.

6. For the purpose of staggering the election cycles of the board after the first election year, the board members occupying the positions of; chairman, vice chairman, financial secretary, treasurer, IT chair, and events chair at the end of the first year will serve their second year on the new board.  All other sitting board members must vacate their positions on the board and seek re-election to the new board from amongst the membership.

7. Should there be a vacancy on the board due to resignation or other cause, the board may appoint an eligible member to fill the vacancy or wait until the next available election will fill that open seat on the board.  The appointed or elected replacement shall serve the remainder of the original term in order to maintain a consistent staggering for future elections to the board.

1. A 2/3 vote of the board is required to schedule an open special meeting and to debate the amendment.  The board may close debate by a 2/3 vote, or table and continue the debate at a later date by a simple majority

2. Any properly debated amendment to these bylaws must be approved by a 3/4 vote of board members present at a board meeting, provided that a copy of proposed amendment is provided to each board member at least one week prior to said meeting.

3. The proposed amendment is then presented to the general membership at a meeting and read aloud.  The amendment is then made available to the membership on the website for no less than 30 days and then voted upon at the next available meeting. Passage requires 2/3 of members present.


The rules contained in the most recent edition of Robert’s Rules of Order shall govern this organization in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the Committee may adopt.



“If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of these bylaws is, for any reason, held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.  It is hereby declared to be the intent of the Officers of Berks County Patriots that these bylaws would have been adopted had such unconstitutional, illegal, or invalid section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion not been included herein.”




Upon the dissolution of this political action group, the Board of Directors shall, after paying or making provisions for payment of all liabilities of the Group, dispose of all the assets of the Committee exclusively for  the purpose of the Group in such manner, or to such organization( s) under applicable provisions of the united States Internal Revenue law then in effect as the Board of Directors determine or as shall, at the time, corporation organized exclusively for the aforementioned purposes.


Second Amendment

September 20, 2010

From My Cold Dead Hands

Northeast Senators continue to press anti-gun agenda

Gillibrand, Kerry & Schumer scheme to expoit campus shooter fears

by  Raquel Okyay


North East politicians are rabid about gun control and are unafraid to act.  Let’s take a look at the three U.S. Senators that have co-sponsored the most recent anti-firearm legislation submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee, S.436 – Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011.  This proposed duplicative law seeks to place the same legal restraints on private sale and purchase of firearms that is encompassed in the Federal Brady Law, together with some new and so-called improved restrictions.

Senators Charles E. “Chuck” Schumer, D-N.Y., and Kirsten E. R. Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and John F. Kerry, D-Mass., the co-sponsors, proudly boost their, urban-style, anti-firearm positions without regard to the limitations set forth in the Second Amendment, to hell with the rest of the country.  They base their anti-firearm goals, as always, on the false premise that less gun sales is equivalent to less violent crimes, when the stats say — not true.

The story continues here.


Self-Defense Against a Violent Flash Mob

Use the A.W.A.R.E. principles to keep your senses, skin

by  Bruce N. Eimer, Ph.D


Wyatt Earp disbursed many a lynch mob with his resolute demeanor standing behind his Colt .45 six shooters or a shotgun. Was his threat overkill? I don’t think so! It worked and usually, not a shot was fired. Check that thought. What about a “flash mob?”

Are they less or more deadly than what Earp encountered? And do you have the reputation of a Marshall Wyatt Earp?

The story continues here.

Trusting Your Gut and Staying Alive

There is a reason they are called “survival instincts”

by  Mark Walters


Self-defense is more than just carrying a firearm, a stun gun, being a black belt or carrying mace. It starts with trusting your gut.

Have you ever had “that feeling” in the pit of your stomach, that feeling deep down in your gut that tells you something just doesn’t feel right?  Have you ever ignored that feeling only to regret your decision later to learn that your gut instinct was in fact, right?

Of course you have, probably many times. You have also probably told yourself that you are going to start trusting that feeling more often only to make the same mistake over and over to be reminded almost every time that you should have trusted your gut in the first place.

Learning to do so may save your life.

The story continues here.

Anti-Gun Groups To Buy
The Passage Of A Global Gun Ban?

EXPOSED: Pro-Gun Groups Blocked From Arms Trade Treaty Discussions

ALERT: Anti-gun groups are flooding the UN with bucket-loads of cash to make sure the UN Arms Trade Treaty is passed ASAP.

Stop The UN Arms Trade Treaty & Defend Your Gun Rights!

Conservatives are fighting tooth and nail to stop the world-wide gun ban. Newly elected Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul, has vowed to fight to end Obama and Hilary Clinton’s work with the UN to pass the “Arms Trade Treaty.” Paul said, “Disguised as an ‘International Arms Control Treaty’ to fight against ‘terrorism,’ ‘insurgency’ and ‘international crime syndicates,’ the UN’s Small Arms Treaty is in fact a massive, global gun control scheme.”

Here We Go!!! Shotguns Coming Under Fire From The ATF And Obama!!!

Basically this targets tactical shotguns as the problem.
There by outlawing many guns that people use for home defense.

What’s the definition of a “shotgun?” According to it’s “a smooth bore gun for firing small shot to kill birds and small quadrupeds, though often used with buckshot to kill larger animals.” For the gun enthusiasts, that’s only partly true, as there is also the option of using slugs. But what if there’s another addition that will soon be added to the definition? How about, illegal.

National Guardsman’s career destroyed by ATF

Posted: March 18, 2011
11:34 am Eastern

© 2011

In recent weeks I have focused on a variety of stupid gun laws. This week I want to look at an example of how application of these stupid laws has seriously harmed one individual.

Albert Kwan lost his small firearms business and his commercial real estate business along with his 25-year career in the National Guard, much of his extensive and extremely valuable firearms collection and all of his life savings. He currently works for a Christian mission program in China and owes his attorney something in excess of $400,000 – all in the name of stupid gun laws and over-zealous enforcement.

Kwan came to the attention of the FBI as they were investigating the 2001 murder of Assistant U.S. Attorney Tom Wales. Kwan’s name showed up on a shipping manifest for a company that sold a particular style of replacement barrel for Makarov pistols – an inexpensive Eastern Block pistol. The company’s sales records were sketchy, but the FBI had managed to track down about 1,700 of the over 3,600 barrels the company had sold over the previous decade.

The story continues here.

Feds sneaking around Congress to regulate firearms

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, or ATF, has a long history of excess and overreaching … and they’re at it again.

Using exaggerated reports of gun smuggling from the U.S. into Mexico as their justification, the agency has filed for an emergency regulation requiring gun dealers to keep track of their customers and file special reports to ATF whenever a customer purchases more than one semi-automatic rifle within any 5-day period. Such special reporting is already required for multiple sales of handguns and has proven to be thoroughly useless as a law enforcement tool.

ATF’s requested regulation – which is unconstitutional, violates a statutory prohibition against firearms registration schemes and was obviously filed as an “emergency” simply as a means of bypassing Congress – would be “temporary,” meaning that it would have to be renewed in four or five months, and is said to only apply to gun dealers in states bordering Mexico, though the regulation, as submitted, seems to be missing that specific limitation.

At this point the proposed regulation is awaiting approval from the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Political observers will recall that OIRA is headed by President Obama’s old friend Cass Sunstein, who famously advocated for the abolition of all hunting and for the extension of legal rights – including the right to have a court-appointed attorney – to animals.

While Mr. Sunstein is an attorney and college professor specializing, in part, in constitutional law, his record shows that his Constitution does not include the Second Amendment. It is expected that Sunstein’s office will approve ATF’s Emergency Regulation by the first week of January unless there is immediate and vehement objection from members of Congress and the public.

Click here for the rest of the story

Firearms and the Constitution
Firearms and the Constitution Versus Treaties
Lesley Swann Tennessee
Tenth Amendment Center August 19, 2010 
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under that Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” – Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution

Recently I attended a gun show, where I handed out information material and answered questions on the Tenth Amendment Center. Several people were concerned about the U.S. making a treaty that would gut the U.S. Constitution and potentially take away firearms from law abiding citizens here in the U.S. They argued that the paragraph above from the Constitution places treaty law above the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

Our Founders very clearly stated the conditions under which the U.S. Constitution could be amended, or changed, in Article 5. It is quite illogical to conceive that our Founders would write such a brilliant document to be the foundation of our union, only to create a giant backdoor for foreign governments to come in and destroy the liberty we had worked so hard to achieve. In fact, our Founders themselves said otherwise.

“The only constitutional exception to the power of making treaties is that it shall not change the Constitution…” – Alexander Hamilton

“I do not conceive that power is given to the President or the Senate to dismember the empire, or alienate any great, essential right. I do not think the whole legislative authority to have this power.” – James Madison

“I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of treaty-making power to be boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson

So, when I began re-reading this section of the Constitution I realized that they didn’t leave a backdoor, but in fact were expressly forbidding this type of maneuver in Article VI. The answer to the riddle that confuses many people isn’t to be found in an indecipherable tome on constitutional law, but instead in simple English grammar and a little attention to detail.

In reading through the entire Constitution, you will notice that whenever the Constitution refers to itself the verbiage “this Constitution” is used. The only exceptions to this are the President’s Oath of Office, where the phrase “the Constitution of the United States” is used, and here in the latter part of Article VI. In every other place where you find the word Constitution written in the Constitution itself, it is preceded by the word “this” making it clear that the Constitution is referring to itself. In the President’s Oath of Office the phrase “Constitution of the United States” makes it perfectly clear that the phrase is referring to this Constitution as well.

The Founders were very clear and precise with their use of language in the Constitution, so why do we have “the Constitution” in this case (“any Thing in THE Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding”), and “this Constitution” in all other cases where the word is written. The simple answer is that in this case, they were not referring to the United States Constitution at all.

The humble preposition is the key to solving the intent of the Founders in this statement. A prepositional phrase – such as of, to, or in – is a word that can modify and indicate relationships. Prepositional phrases can also modify more than one object. In this case, the prepositional phrase “of any State” refers to both the words “Constitution” and “Laws” that precede the phrase. This means that the final phrase of this clause could rightly be read to mean “any Thing in the Constitution of any State or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” The Founders weren’t saying that treaties were to be supreme over the U.S. Constitution, but that they could and would take precedence over the state constitutions and laws.

It is clear with a little analysis of the details of the language and grammar used to construct this clause that our Founders were placing treaty law in its rightful place – beneath the supreme law of the land in the form of our U.S. Constitution, but above the laws and constitutions of the states. There is no loophole that can allow international interests to trump the U.S. Constitution, but the treaty must be made in pursuance of our Constitution, just as all laws that Congress makes must be in pursuance of the Constitution.

While some well-meaning (and not-so-well-meaning) politicians may claim that they can legislate via treaty, this clearly was not the intent of our Founders. Will this knowledge stop those who would seek to take our freedoms from shredding the Constitution by attempting to pass such treaties? Probably not. But we can rest firm in the knowledge that our Founders did not give the Federal government the power to usurp the Constitution by treaty, and that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not treaty law. More importantly, we can use this knowledge as intellectual firepower to stop the enemies of liberty and the Second Amendment from doing so.

Sheriff says he’ll undermine gun ban
Sheriff says he’ll undermine gun ban  Anti-gun theorists impose dangerous policy
February 23, 2010 6:10 PM
The Colorado State University Board of Governors voted unanimously Tuesday to place students at both of its campuses in harm’s way with a sweeping weapons ban law-abiding citizens will obey and criminals will ignore.
Larimer County Sheriff James Alderden, outraged by the ban, told The Gazette’s opinion department he will undermine it in the interest of student safety.
CSU-Fort Collins Police Chief Wendy Rich-Goldsmith, a relative newcomer to the campus, supports the ban.
“I have told the CSU police chief I will not support this in any way,” Sheriff Alderden told The Gazette. “If anyone with one of my permits gets arrested for concealed carry at CSU, I will refuse to book that person into my jail. Furthermore, I will show up at court and testify on that person’s behalf, and I will do whatever I can to discourage a conviction. I will not be a party to this very poor decision.”
Though each CSU campus has its own police department, Alderden issues all cops on the Fort Collins campus a deputy sheriff’s commission card. He also runs the county’s jail, which campus police use after making arrests.
Alderden said ban advocates have been unable to cite a single study or statistic to show that students will be safer as a result of a weapons ban. He’s convinced they will be much less safe as a result of the ban, which will leave most students defenseless. The ban establishes the campuses as “soft targets,” meaning armed criminals will have a reasonable expectation their intended victims aren’t armed.
“There are volumes of statistical and anecdotal data that show populations are safer when law-abiding citizens are permitted to carry concealed weapons,” Alderden said.
Six years after Alderden began issuing permits, he noticed the homicide rate in his jurisdiction had dropped.
At CSU-Fort Collins, the ban includes pepper spray, in quantities greater than an ounce, and Tasers.
“This ban, which is broad and encompassing, basically denies students at the Fort Collins campus any defensive capacity at all,” Alderden said. “It’s a weapons-free zone for law-abiding people, and it won’t do a single thing to keep armed criminals off of campus. It will only ensure them a lot of defenseless victims. The people who did this are lost in their own world of ideological liberalism. You would think people involved in academia would want to deal in data and experience, but this has been all about emotion.”
Alderden said he realized the sentiment against self-defense is based in emotion after speaking with a public school teacher who asked him to stop issuing concealment permits. He showed her data that prove concealed carry reduces crime. He told her concealed carry would help reduce violent crime in Fort Collins and the rest of Larimer County — a sentiment shared by El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa and a growing number of ranking law enforcement officials regarding their own jurisdictions.
“I made the whole case, based in provable facts. The teacher said, and I quote, ‘I don’t care about the facts.’ She only cared about her emotional response,” Alderden said.
(Please vote in poll to the right, in red type. Must vote to see results. Thanks!)
The student Senate of the Fort Collins campus opposed the ban by a 23-1 vote. That means CSU governors, and administrators who pushed for the ban, don’t seem to care what their customers think. The Student Senate at Pueblo approved the ban, only after administrators said “weapons” did not include Tasers or pepper spray.
“God forbid we have something like the tragedy at Virginia Tech at one of these campuses,” Alderden said, referring to a notorious shooting spree in which a lunatic wantonly killed for hours, while a gun ban ensured him no students or faculty would shoot back.
Alderden questions the legality of the ban, saying the legislature never discussed excluding college campuses when it passed a shall-issue concealed-carry law in 2003. The law requires county sheriff’s to issue concealment permits to law-abiding residents without felonies, misdemeanor domestic violence records, or other disqualifying conditions. Furthermore, he said students who ignore the ban won’t have legal problems if they don’t get caught.
“If it’s properly concealed, so that nobody sees the weapon, it probably won’t be a problem,” Alderden said.
In the event a concealed weapon is needed for defense of self or others, it would become evident to law enforcement. In that unlikely event, Alderden said, safety trumps legal concerns.
“They say it’s better to be judged by 12 than carried by six,” Alderden said.
That’s the advice of a lawman with a record of reducing crime. The ban is the work of academic ideologues, who theorize about safety and crime. Hope and pray the academicians don’t find themselves begging forgiveness someday, in the wake of a horrible crime. — Wayne Laugesen, editorial page editor, for the editorial board

Ammunition Control
Ammunition Control by the Obama Administration
by A.W.R. Hawkins
Without bullets, a gun is no more useful as a weapon than a rock or a hammer. Although an unloaded gun could be thrown at an intruder or a tyrant, the lack of ammunition ultimately reduces it to the status of a glorified paperweight.And this is not lost on the nearly 100 million gun owners in America, a number of which are asking if the current shortage of bullets is the result of backdoor efforts at gun control (via ammunition control) by the Obama Administration?The quick answer to that question is — not exactly.

In other words, the reasons behind the current shortage, as the well as the price increases on what little ammunition is available, are both governmental and nongovernmental in nature.

As for the government’s role, a prime example arose in March 2009 when the Department of Defense (DOD) suddenly changed its policy about selling old brass from spent military rounds to Georgia Arms, an ammunition manufacturer located in Winston, Georgia.

According to Curtis Shipley, President of Georgia Arms, on March 12, 2009, the DOD, which had been a longstanding source of cheap brass for the ammo manufacturer, decided that brass could only be purchased from the military if it was “mutilated.” In other words, it would not longer be possible to buy empty brass casings that Georgia Arms could then clean, quickly reload, and sell to the public at a low price.

When I spoke to Shipley, who had been accustomed to buying spent brass in increments of fifteen tons from the DOD, he said, “This portended higher prices because it required us to either mutilate perfectly good brass when we picked it up from a military base or have a DOD employee travel with us (and the brass) to verify that we did indeed mutilate it at a another site.”

Once mutilated, Georgia Arms would have had to melt the brass down, re-alloy it (casings for each caliber require a specific alloy blend that can sustain the pressures for that caliber), and then re-shape it into the proper casing for whichever caliber they were manufacturing. Said Shipley: “Such a process would add approximately $90 to the cost of one thousand rounds of 9mm ammunition right off the bat.”

Fortunately, the public outcry against this DOD maneuver was so great that the order to mutilate all brass was rescinded after just five days. However, those five days were enough to contribute to another problem the government had been causing since November 2008 – namely, fear of an all out Obama-led assault on guns and ammo.
Speaking to this fear, Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, said: “You can go to gun stores all over the country and many of them will have a picture of President Obama hanging on the wall. However, when you get up close to the picture and look at the caption on the bottom, instead of saying ‘President’ it says ‘Gun Salesman of the Year.’”

Pratt said gun owners are rightly leery of this administration. Obama supports the new California law that will require every semi-automatic pistol sold in that state to come equipped with a special firing mechanism that makes a distinctive mark – a “fingerprint” – on every bullet casing it fires. And currently, some Democrats in the House of Representatives want to take that law a step further and enact legislation that would force ammunition companies to place serial numbers on every shell casing they manufacture.

Let me just say that if you think ammunition is scarce and expensive now, wait till manufacturers have to put a serial number on every casing and maintain records containing the names, addresses, etc., of everyone who purchases such casings.

No wonder Pratt said: “None of this is about safety. Rather, it’s about finding ways to create an ammo and gun registry that will allow the government to finally figure out which son got daddy’s gun when daddy passed away.”

And while the government is doing its part to make ammunition harder to find, either directly, via episodes like the one between Georgia Arms and the DOD, or indirectly, by scaring citizens to death through anti-gun posturing that has caused a run on ammo sales, the market plays a role as well. With demand outpacing supply the market sustains higher prices for ammo under Obama than it was able to sustain for that same ammo during the presidency of a pro-gun politician like George W. Bush.

Add to this the fact that we’re now sending the majority of the lead from our recycled car batteries to China, instead of selling that lead to ammunition manufacturers who can cheaply reclaim it to make affordable bullets for their casings, and it’s no wonder consumers are scrambling to find ammunition and then paying a fortune for it when they do.

Did I fail to mention that millions upon millions of rounds of ammunition are currently being diverted to our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere right now as well? While this is understandable, it further highlights the fact that we gun owners are in a tight spot, as far as getting ammunition for our guns is concerned.

With all these variables affecting the availability of ammunition, this would be a great time to join a group like Gun Owners of America. By so doing we would assure the politicians in D.C. that if they use their offices to further deny us bullets for our guns, we will use the voting booth to deny them the very offices they now hold.

Guns Save Lives
College student shoots home invader, saves 10 livesYet another reason to keep a gun in the house . . .Several months ago, in the notoriously dangerous neighborhood of College Park in Atlanta, Georgia, two armed criminals broke into a house party of students.

After confiscating the group’s valuables, the invaders split the men and women up into different rooms.

Witnesses say the perpetrators then counted their rounds and discussed if they had “enough” ammunition.

The students believe the gunmen were going to rape and murder the entire group of students, who were celebrating a birthday at the end of the semester.

However, one male student, whose identity is being protected by police and local media, retrieved a handgun from his backpack and fired at the thug who was detaining the men.

(That is: One smart student had prepared for a night in College Park, Atlanta.)

The criminal fled the apartment under the threat of injury and never returned.

The student continuing on into the girls’ room, found the other thug, 23-year-old Calvin Lavant, preparing to rape his first victim.

The student exchanged gunfire with Lavant, lethally wounding him in the process. Lavant fled through a window and died in front of his apartment, only one building away.

One of the female students was injured during the exchange, but doctors expect a full and complete recovery.

So what’s the point

A student saved the girls from rape, and saved the whole group of 10 people (including himself) from murder … and he did it with a handgun.

This is a perfect example of how ludicrous “big city gun laws” are. What if this had happened in New York, Chicago, or any of the other big cities that criminalize their citizens’ self defense?

Yes, we would be reading an entirely different story — one so horrendous that we would shudder at the very words.

Either this whole group of friends would have been raped and murdered by these two sorry excuses for human beings . . . or the hero of this story would be facing prison time for firearm possession and murder.

Thankfully, however, Atlanta hasn’t outlawed self-defense yet. And since someone had a gun and was willing to use it, innocent life was preserved.

Congratulations to the unnamed hero of this story. You saved your friends’ lives.

In Liberty,

Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights


September 19, 2010

A Summary of the U.S. Senate’s Draconian Gun Control Proposals

February 2, 2013   Source: Lee Rogers,

It is no secret that the second amendment is currently under attack by a number of authoritarians in Washington DC. Several bills have been introduced in Congress that if passed into law would either dismantle or regulate away the ability of law abiding citizens to conduct transactions involving firearms, ammunition and assorted gun related accessories. These people want you to believe that gun related violence will disappear only if they are able to pass a few gun control laws. If this were true than Mexico which has some of the most restrictive gun laws on the planet would be one of the safest countries in the world. In reality, these restrictive gun laws have empowered Mexican drug cartels to commit countless murders because the average person is unable to defend themselves from people who operate outside of the law. We see the same trend in the United States where gun violence is a much larger problem in areas where there are gun restrictions. Chicago and Washington DC are two good examples of this. When the Supreme Court struck down certain gun control provisions that were imposed in these cities, the murder and gun crime rates actually dropped. Schools which are essentially advertised by the media as gun free zones have now become ripe targets for criminally insane individuals because they know there won’t be anyone who will fight back. Anyone who believes that gun control laws will reduce gun violence either has no basic common sense or has an agenda to disarm the people so they can be more easily controlled and potentially enslaved.

Many new gun control bills have already been introduced in the 113th Congress. In this article we are going to focus specifically on the gun control measures that have been introduced in the U.S. Senate. Here is a quick synopsis of each one of those bills.

Senate Bill 22 or the Gun Show Background Check Act of 2013 seeks to regulate gun shows out of existence. The bill would require anyone wishing to hold a gun show to register with the Attorney General and pay a fee that would be later determined by the Attorney General. In other words, it would give the Attorney General the power to shut down any and all gun shows by simply requiring the gun show promoter to pay an outrageous fee to hold a show. The bill also introduces a ridiculous amount of red tape involving criminal background checks, licensing and recordkeeping requirements that regulate firearm transactions at gun shows. It would make it very difficult if not impossible for vendors at gun shows to conduct any sort of business. The bill also gives the Attorney General the power to examine transaction records at gun shows without any sort of probable cause or a warrant.

The story continues here.


Court: Obama Appointments Are Unconstitutional

Friday, 25 Jan 2013 11:43 AM

President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to fill vacancies on a labor relations panel, a federal appeals court panel ruled Friday.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that Obama did not have the power to make three recess appointments last year to the National Labor Relations Board.

The unanimous decision is an embarrassing setback for the president, who made the appointments after Senate Republicans spent months blocking his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions.

The ruling also throws into question Obama’s recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray’s appointment, also made under the recess circumstance, has been challenged in a separate case.

Obama claims he acted properly in the case of the NLRB appointments because the Senate was away for the holidays on a 20-day recess. But the three-judge panel ruled that the Senate technically stayed in session when it was gaveled in and out every few days for so-called “pro forma” sessions.

The story continues here.

Assault on the Second Amendment

‘I Will Not Comply’

By Mark Alexander · January 10, 2013

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” –Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

PUBLISHER’S NOTE: Patriots, I call on you to pledge: “We, the People, affirm that we will support and defend Liberty as ‘endowed by our Creator,’ enshrined in our Constitution and empowered by its Second Amendment, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Sign the 2A pledge!

Though tens of millions of American Patriots have already said it, the time has come for one of us to go to the mountaintop and shout it so the whole world can hear it.

I hereby make this public declaration: In keeping with the oath I have taken in the service of my country, I will “support and defend” Liberty as “endowed by our Creator” and enshrined in our Constitution, “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Accordingly, I will NOT comply with any defensive weapons ban instituted by executive order, legislative action or judicial diktat, which violates the innate human right to defend self and Liberty, as empowered by “the right of the People to keep and bear arms.”

What does this mean?

I will neither register with, nor surrender to the government, any weapon in my possession. I further declare that I am not in possession of weapon, weapon component or ammunition that has not been lawfully acquired for lawful purposes, including defense of self and family, home and property, and most importantly, defense of Liberty in accordance with the Second Amendment.

I have spoken with my family and our Patriot Team about the potential consequences of this public declaration, both for our families and for our company. They fully understand the implications of my very public declaration of civil disobedience in defense of Liberty and Rule of Law. They understand that I have and will abide, first and foremost, by my oath to support and defend our Constitution — the very oath that Barack Obama and his NeoCom cadres have solemnly sworn, but stand in abject violation of same.

Since publishing the first issue of The Patriot Post more than 16 years ago, I have made clear that one constitutional prohibition on the central government trumps all others, and that is the proscription against federal infringement of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”

Indeed, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote, in his eminent “Commentaries on the Constitution,” “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

Story was James Madison’s appointee to the High Court, and Madison himself wrote in Federalist No. 46, “The ultimate authority … resides in the people alone. … The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.”

Just after Obama’s re-election, I warned that he would attempt to render neutral the only substantive obstacle between Liberty and his avowed political agenda of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” — the Second Amendment.

I noted that, per their standard political playbook, the socialists and their Leftmedia promoters would wait on some tragic murder spree, and, in keeping with Obama’s game plan to “never let a serious crisis go to waste,” use that event as fodder to seize guns.

A month after writing those words, a mentally deranged sociopath used a firearm to kill children and adults in a Connecticut elementary school. Before the bodies of murdered children had even been removed from Sandy Hook Elementary, Obama was, shamefully, stacking their coffins to use as a soapbox for his latest and greatest assault on the Second Amendment — a renewed effort to not only ban the future sale of many defensive weapons, but register them in order to eventually confiscate them.

Obama has framed this debate as a contest between “public safety” and the NRA — those who “cling to guns or religion” — and insists that the Second Amendment was instituted to protect “hunting and sport shooting.” He has called for a so-called “assault weapons” ban — I note “so-called” because it would more accurately be described as a “defensive weapons” because such arms are purchased, first and foremost, for defense not assault.

Obama claims, “We’re a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment. We’ve got a long tradition of hunting…” If by “hunting” he means hunting down those who offend Liberty, then he is correct.

Some Leftist governors and legislators have already adopted Obama’s “hunting” misinformation memo. New York’s Andrew Cuomo proposed “the toughest assault weapons ban in the nation” this week, asserting, “We respect hunters and sportsmen. This is not taking away peoples’ guns. I own a gun. I own a Remington shotgun. I’ve hunted. I’ve shot. That’s not what this is about. It’s about ending the unnecessary risk of high-capacity assault rifles. No one hunts with an assault rifle! No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer!”

If, by “risk of high-capacity assault rifles,” he means risk that they might be used for their intended purpose — to defend Liberty against the tyranny of socialist politicos and those who do their bidding — then I understand his concern.

The fact is, these weapons, which Obama and his cadres want to eradicate, account for only a tiny fraction of homicides in the U.S. Obama and Biden know that — which is why they have reframed their gun ban rhetoric around saving a few lives rather than many: “As the president said, if your actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking,” said Biden.

According to the FBI’s public safety statistics, almost 10 times as many people are murdered annually with knives, hammers and bare hands than are murdered with the type of weapon used in the Connecticut attack. Furthermore, from the time the Senate first banned so-called “assault weapons” in 1994, through the expiration of that ban in 2004 and to the present day, the number of such weapons held by the people has increased by 2.5 million, while murders have dropped by almost 50 percent. In other words, more guns equate to less crime. But Obama is not one to let hard facts interfere with his sacred socialist agenda.

So, why all the focus on so-called “assault weapons” — what is the Left’s real agenda? (That question was rhetorical.)

Patriots, this contest is most assuredly not between public safety and the NRA, but between Leftists and Essential Liberty.

Benjamin Franklin spoke timeless words to this contest: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” In the case of those who would give up Essential Liberty for nothing more than the perception of a little temporary safety with more gun prohibitions, they will, ultimately, lose both.

In addition to Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s renewed “comprehensive” ban on a long list of defensive weapons, which she plans to reintroduce in two weeks, Obama appointed Joe Biden to be his executive branch lightning rod for this subterfuge.

Three weeks ago, Attorney General Eric Holder, who once suggested “we should really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way,” implied that Obama might use an executive order to undermine the Second Amendment. This week, Joe Biden confirmed that, saying, “The president is going to act. There are executive orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required. It’s critically important that we act.”

On that note, enough is enough.

Liberty is “endowed by our Creator,” not determined by executive decree or congressional legislation or judicial diktat. Liberty is an innate human right. It is a gift from God, not from politicians.

I have, herein, publicly declared that I will not comply with any executive order, legislative action or judicial diktat, which violates our Constitution, or the innate human right to defend self and Liberty. I know that there are tens of millions of Patriots who are, likewise, committed. As our Founders affirmed in the last line of the document codifying their rejection of tyranny: “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.”

Fellow Patriots, I can handle the consequences of my very public declaration of intent to reject Obama’s assault on the Second Amendment. I am not asking you to make the same public commitment, though I know most of you would step up to the line.

However, I am asking you to join me in your pledge to affirm: “We, the People, affirm that we will support and defend Liberty as “endowed by our Creator,” enshrined in our Constitution and empowered by its Second Amendment, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Please make that affirmation today and encourage others to do the same.

2nd Amendment for Dummies and Tyrants

by KrisAnne Hall http:///www.KrisAnneHall.comKing Barry the Waster, has his “gun ban list.”    As evidenced in  HR 1022 which was proposed in 2007, the Liberals are bent on disarming US citizens.  What many citizens and legislators do not understand is that the federal government has no right to prevent any law-abiding citizen from owning or possessing ANY firearm. The Constitution and its history is unequivocally clear on this!  Here is a little 2nd Amendment for Dummies and Tyrants.Everything we need to know was explained by our founders in the years 1787-1788.  Lesson one comes from George Mason.  George Mason, along with James Madison, is referred to as the “Father of the Bill of Rights.”  Seems to me a good person to listen to when it comes to any portion of the Bill of Rights is someone who is referred to as its “Father.”  Mason first explains the REASON we are to bear arms, and guess what; it has nothing to do with hunting and skeet shooting…or fighting muggers!

“Forty years ago, when the resolution ofenslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, (Sir William Keith) who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. [Here Mr. Mason quoted sundry passages to this effect.] Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed? The general government ought, at the same time, to have some such power. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia.” George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1788

In the words of the “Father,” we bear arms to keep from becoming enslaved by the federal government.  But Mr. Mason doesn’t end his lesson there, he continues by making sure we know WHO the militia is and the answer will surely be a surprise to King Barry and his jester, Eric Holder.

“Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has askedwho are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation?  I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…” George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

So Mason explains We The People are the militia who bear arms to keep from being enslaved by the federal government AND to protect ourselves from the tyranny of OUR REPRESENTATIVES, whose dereliction leads us to suffer the same fate of foreign nations!

Lesson two comes from the great patriot Noah Webster.  Speaking on the threat of an overpowering central government, he further explains, with great clarity, the REASON our founders intended the entire citizenry be armed.

“Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command: for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”  Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787

Even the dummies out there should be able to follow that.  Why do we bear arms according to Noah Webster?

1.     To prevent rule by a standing army;

2.     To prevent Congress from executing unjust and unconstitutional laws;

3.     To prevent the Federal Government from becoming unjust and oppressive;

4.     The people bearing arms should be SUPERIOR to an army controlled by Congress.

Lesson number 3 comes from a founder referred to in pseudonym as Letter from a Federal Farmer (most likely Richard Henry Lee, writer of the Resolution Declaring Independence).  This interesting explanation is guaranteed to make every liberal and even a “conservative” or two slip into a fit of convulsions.  Mr. Lee explains,

“[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”  Letter from the Federal Farmer #18 January 25, 1788.

Mr. Lee explains that it is our DUTY to not simply bear arms but to ALWAYS bear arms. Mr. Lee is probably rolling over in his grave at the idea that we have to ask permission of the government to carry a firearm.  How about that directive that we also must teach our children to bear arms?  I smell the smoke roiling out of the liberals’ ears.

Our final lessons today come from Patrick Henry.  Mr. Henry was probably one of the most passionate champion of the citizen’s duty to bear arms.  No one can break it down like Patrick Henry.

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”  Patrick Henry Virginia Ratifying Convention June 5, 1788

“Oh, sir! we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone;…Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors can not assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America.”  Patrick Henry Virginia Ratifying Convention June 5, 1788

Well, there you have it, 2nd Amendment for Dummies and Tyrants.  Yet, perhaps King Barry and his court jesters DO UNDERSTAND the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.  Perhaps that is why he is so intent on disarming the people, because he knows, as our founders did, that an armed citizenry is the last line of defense against absolute tyranny.

Just remember, the Federal government has no legitimate power beyond what its masters delegate to it.  The States are the final battleground against centralized tyranny.   We will defend our States, until we regain our nation. 

“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”  Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #78

Terrorism Center at West Point Warns Against Danger of American Limited-Government Activists and ‘Far Right’

Jan. 18, 2013 11:30am Tiffany Gabbay

The Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point released a study Tuesday warning against American “far right” groups including the “anti-federalist” movement and strong limited government activists.

The report, titled “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right,” posits that in recent years, and especially since 2007, “there has been a dramatic rise in the number of attacks and violent plots originating from individuals and groups who self-identify with the far-right of American politics.”

The analysis, conducted by West Point professor and CTC director of terrorism studies Arie Perliger, noted that his study “concentrates on those individuals and groups who have actually perpetuated violence and is not a comprehensive analysis of the political causes with which some far-right extremists identify.” He added that an in-depth look at the data provided addresses three crucial questions:

(1) What are the main current characteristics of the violence produced by the far right?

(2) What type of far-right groups are more prone than others to engage in violence? How are characteristics of particular far-right groups correlated with their tendency to engage in violence?

(3) What are the social and political factors associated with the level of far-right violence? Are there political or social conditions that foster or discourage violence?

The West Point professor said anti-federalists “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”

Perliger also identified limited government activists as belonging to one of three categories: “a racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement.”

According to the Washington Times, the report also draws correlation between mainstream conservatism and what it dubs the violent “far right.” The study then goes on to laud liberals as forward-thinking while maintaining that conservatives harbor a more archaic mindset.

“While liberal worldviews are future- or progressive -oriented, conservative perspectives are more past-oriented, and in general, are interested in preserving the status quo,” the report states.

“The far right represents a more extreme version of conservatism, as its political vision is usually justified by the aspiration to restore or preserve values and practices that are part of the idealized historical heritage of the nation or ethnic community.”

Citing a reported 350 “attacks initiated by far-right groups/individuals” in 2011, the analysis characterizes the liberal-democratic system as inclusive and “designed to emphasize civil rights” while far-right ideology inherently “excludes” minorities.

Perlinger’s study, however, has not gone without meeting a degree of criticism. Speaking to the Times, a Republican congressional staffer slammed: “If [the Defense Department] is looking for places to cut spending, this junk study is ground zero.”

He added that the Combating Terrorism Center should be focused on radical Islam and, at the least, publish a companion report underlying the dangers of left-wing terror groups like “the Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, and the Weather Underground.”

The CTC describes itself as “one of the leading academic institutions devoted to the study of terrorism” whose research is informed by three core components including” studying emerging threats, challenging conventional logic and offering counter intuitive insights.”

Judge Slaps Down EPA Bid to Regulate Water as a Pollutant

Thursday, 03 Jan 2013 08:18 PM     By David A. Patten

A federal district judge Thursday shot down a “novel” EPA attempt to regulate the flow of water as a pollutant, stopping dead in its tracks what otherwise would have been a major regulatory expansion.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Liam O’Grady handed a significant legal victory to Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, who is running for governor of the Commonwealth.

Cuccinelli personally argued the case before O’Grady on Dec. 14, warning the EPA’s attempt to regulate the flow of water into state waterways would amount to a “tremendous expansion” of its regulatory power.
The story continues here.

FBI: More Killed With Hammers, Clubs Than With Rifles

Thursday, 03 Jan 2013 05:24 PM     By Stephen Feller

Since the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14, Democrats have made reinstatement of the assault weapons ban a major priority for the 113th Congress despite the fact that relatively few murders are killed with weapons that would be banned.

From 2005 through 2011, more people in the U.S. were killed with hammers and clubs, or with hands and fists, than with rifles, which is what the ban likely would have the most effect on, reports Breitbart.

There were 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs in 2011, as compared with 323 deaths connected to a rifle, according to FBI records. In 2006, there were 618 killings committed with a hammer or club, and 438 murders with a rifle. Many years, twice as many people were killed with hands and fists than with rifles.

“While the FBI makes is clear that some of the ‘murder by rifle’ numbers could be adjusted up slightly, when you take into account murders with non-categorized types of guns,” wrote Awr Hawkins, continuing that “it does not change the fact that their annual reports consistently show more lives are taken each year with these blunt objects than are taken with Feinstein’s dreaded rifle.

Club for Growth’s Chocola: GOP Has “All the Leverage” in Debt-Ceiling Fight

Thursday, 03 Jan 2013 05:01 PM     By Todd Beamon and John Bachman

The Republican Party holds the power in the upcoming talks on raising the nation’s $16.4 trillion debt ceiling — “if they’re willing to use it,” Club for Growth President Chris Chocola tells Newsmax TV in an exclusive interview.

“At some point we have to be serious about this,” Chocola tells Newsmax. “At some point, Republicans have to do what Republicans say they have to do — and they have to stand up for limited government, spending restraint, and fiscal responsibility.

“This is an opportunity they have. They have all of the leverage in the world on their side if they’re willing to use it,” he added. “They have a simple message — and they have public opinion that’s sympathetic. This will be a real test to whether Republicans can do something constructive and put this country back on the path of fiscal solvency.”
The story continues here.

December 26, 2012 by Tim Brown

Indefinite Military Detention Of US Citizens To Be Signed Into Law By Obama
We’ve been trying to keep you aware of what has been taking place with the talks concerning the 2013 version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). We’ve covered the Feinstein amendment, which effectively did nothing, except to empower Congress to authorize the military at their whim to violate people’s 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment rights. But now the talks are all done and the legislation is headed for Barack Obama’s desk to be signed into law soon, just as it was nearly one year ago today, including provision to use the military to indefinitely detain US citizens.

Previously, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) voted for the Feinstein amendment to the NDAA. But then there came the hashing out of language in the bill and Paul blasted Senator John McCain (R-AZ) for stripping away the amendment.

The story continues here.

Sen. Grassley: GOP Has ‘Leverage’ Over Obama on Fiscal Cliff

Wednesday, 26 Dec 2012 06:44 PM

By Jim Meyers and Kathleen Walter

Longtime Sen. Chuck Grassley tells Newsmax that Republicans have a “great deal of leverage” on President Obama because they can refuse to raise the debt ceiling unless he agrees to spending cuts.

The Iowa Republican also says the president wants the nation to go over the fiscal cliff because it will raise everyone’s taxes — then he can be seen as saving the middle class by lowering their taxes in the new year.
Grassley was first elected to the Senate in 1980. He is member of the Budget and Finance committees and the former chairman of the Finance Committee.

The story continues here.

Electric Power Blackout: The Powet of One

by papundits    By Ken Chrosniak ~

There exists a clear and present danger to you, your family and your community; the loss of sustained electric power.  As of now, absolutely no government entity (except for the Department of Defense (DoD)) has initiated plans for survival from a catastrophic breakdown of our electric grid over multiple regions of America.  Even worse, the U.S. government lacks the ability and inclination to provide you with critical information for your survival and well-being.

Even though there exists grace and beauty all around us, we are constantly being bombarded with 24/7/365 news, — mostly negative. While I hesitate to add more angst to your life in these very anxious times, near the end, I’ll give you a glimmer of hope on what positive action you can do. That’s my goal in this ‘conversation’ with you. My perspective is from a private citizen and former soldier, formed from the foundation of a history/english major and not a scientist (actually it’s an advantage). This is a very complicated problem set with many moving parts that affect you directly, and our very survival as a sovereign nation.  It’s best to leave it to you and me to the chase, and get a good picture of the condition of our country.

We are totally dependent on electricity; we literally cannot survive without it. Our extremely tenuous electric grid, comprised of hundreds of vulnerable power extra high voltage (EHV) transformers and over 200,000 miles of aged transmission lines, is the ‘circulatory system’ that runs our country and touches every aspect of your life such as water pressure for daily use, sanitation and fighting fires; your cell phone; the Internet (that makes it possible for the doctor to order Insulin for your child); the supply chain to deliver that Insulin to you; pumping systems to cool the nuclear power plant core rods and spent fuel pools; Wall Street and ATM’s; medical services; all forms of transportation; oil refinery production; refrigeration; military installations and defense industrial bases; your social security/pension check, and virtually all types of emergency communications used by Fire, Police, and EMS to name just a few.

The story continues here.

America Again Submits to the Istanbul Process

By Nina Shea

December 3, 2012 12:28 P.M

Round three of the “Istanbul Process” opens today, December 3, and runs through Wednesday, at Canada House, in London, hosted by the U.K. and Canada. The Istanbul Process is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s major transnational law initiative, undertaken in partnership with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). It was established last year to “implement” measures against speech and expression that negatively “stereotype[s]” Islam and Muslims, with a particular emphasis on enacting them in the West.

This initiative was started as an inexplicable, gratuitous gift to the Muslim world following the March 2011 adoption of a non-binding U.N. Human Rights Council resolution (16/18) on the same theme. While the Obama administration claims that it doesn’t intend for the process to adopt regulations beyond the American free-speech standard, our partner, the OIC, is only too eager to do just that.

The story continues here.

EDITORIAL: Romney’s electoral insurgency

Republicans are picking off states while Democrats scramble

A political tectonic shift is under way. Heading into the final weeks of the presidential campaign, the electoral map is changing decisively. Areas previously thought safe for Barack Obama are becoming competitive, and tossup states are turning into safe havens for Mitt Romney. A month ago, commentators were claiming the roads to victory were closing for the Romney campaign. Now it’s the Obama camp hunkering down to make a last stand around a few critical states.

On Thursday, the RealClearPolitics electoral-vote map gave Mr. Romney the lead for the first time. President Obama had an 88-vote advantage two weeks ago, but now the challenger leads by five. This 93-vote swing took place chiefly because four states on the Great Lakes — Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin — changed from “leaning Obama” to tossups. This combined 64-vote loss significantly broadened the territory the Obama team needs to contest.

The story continues here.

Virginia Teacher Charged With Assault: Girl’s Hand Cut in Forced ‘Islamic Hand Sign’ Drill (Updated)

An elementary school teacher in Chesapeake, Va. has been charged with simple assault after a parent claimed her daughter’s hand was cut open as a result of the teacher yanking her arm aggressively while trying to teach students an “Islamic hand sign.”

Officer Leo Kosinski, a spokesman for the Chesapeake Police Department, told TheBlaze that Tara Harris was criminally charged with a misdemeanor on Oct. 11 and released on a summons. The case is currently under investigation.

“It’s still a criminal charge. It happened at the school and it involved a student,” Kosinski said. The police department could not release any additional information.

Stephanie Bennett, the mother of the 10-year-old girl who was allegedly assaulted at Butts Road Intermediate School, told TheBlaze in an emotional phone interview that Harris has a disturbing trend of “indoctrinating” students with Islamic teachings. She also said the teacher openly campaigns for President Barack Obama in the classroom.

The incident of alleged assault occurred on October 2, according to Bennett.

“The teacher was going over Islamic hand signs with the children — she stayed on this issue for two days straight during their reading and math class,” she said.

Bennett’s daughter suffers from a processing disorder, making it difficult for her to quickly grasp things like hand signs. “Not that she’s uneducated or anything. It’s just a processing problem,” the mother said.

When Bennett’s daughter was unable to do the Islamic hand sign correctly after two days of instruction, Harris became frustrated and attempted to twist the girl’s fingers to make the Islamic gesture meaning “power and strength.” The way Bennett described it, it sounds like an upside A-OK hand gesture. It is unclear exactly which “Islamic hand sign” was being promoted as the source information comes from children.

“When she didn’t get it right, [Harris] went over and yanked her hand out of her desk and my daughter’s hand got hung up on the metal wire on her file folder and the skin got caught on it,” the mother explained, her voice cracking with emotion. “The other children saw my daughter’s hand dripping with blood after the teacher had gotten so mad that she went to twist my daughter’s hand into an Islamic sign.”

After her child came home with the cut on her hand and she learned what had happened, Bennett immediately filed a police report. She claims to have pictures of her daughter’s injuries. She has agreed to share the pictures with TheBlaze, however, they were unable to be sent digitally late Wednesday night.

She says the day after the incident school officials informed her that Harris had been placed on administrative leave. On Tuesday, she was then informed that the teacher had been terminated from the Chesapeake Public School system all together. Her termination can not be independently confirmed as the messages left with multiple officials with the school system have not been returned. Attempts to contact Harris were also unsuccessful.

The mother said her daughter told her that Harris “prays to Allah in Arabic” around five times a day in front of students and teaches them about Islam and how it is superior to other religions. Bennett claims other parents have confirmed her suspicions after talking with their kids.

One of those parents, Nita Redditt, told TheBlaze that her young son confirmed Bennett’s story. The boy said he was “scared” to go back to school the next day after she found out, she added.

“I think he was intimidated,” Redditt said. “I couldn’t believe what was going on in the classroom in regards to this teacher praying to Allah and having them pray with her.”

Bennett said she wants the Chesapeake Police Department to conduct a full investigation into Harris’s actions. She also wants to know why she wasn’t notified immediately when another parent complained to Butts Road Intermediate School officials about Harris campaigning for Obama in the classroom and bashing Republican GOP nominee Mitt Romney.

Bennett said a school resource officer intially told her that “speaking in Arabic wasn’t against school policy.”

“Kids can’t stand up and fight for themselves. Someone’s got to fight for them,” Bennett said. “Why didn’t someone call me? Why weren’t any of the parents notified?”

What is strange is that no local news outlets appear to be reporting on the incident — not even the fact that a public school teacher was charged with assault.

Chesapeake Public Schools is still reeling from fresh allegations of criminal activity against one of its teachers. WAVY-TV reports that Bryan Carter, an assistant principal at Indian River High School, was arrested earlier this month and charged with abduction, burglary, attempted robbery and assault and battery., which serves the Chesapeake area, also reported on Wednesday that a Virginia Beach piano teacher had been charged with sexually abusing a 14-year-old boy.

So why are local media not covering the story involving Harris, who has been with the school since September, allegedly assaulting a 10-year-old student and forcing her class to learn Islamic hand signs? What makes this story different?

TheBlaze will continue to follow up with Chesapeake Public Schools for additional information on this developing story.

Pa. student who wore Romney shirt: Teacher ‘told me to get out of the classroom’

By Dan Stamm and Claudia Rivero,

A Philadelphia high schooler says she was humiliated after her teacher told her to remove a Mitt Romney T-shirt she was wearing, comparing it to “wearing a KKK shirt.”

Samantha Pawlucy, a 16-year-old sophomore at Charles Carroll High School in the Port Richmond section of the city, says she wore a pink Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan T-shirt last Friday during the school’s dress-down day.

No one made an issue of Samantha’s political T-shirt until she got to geometry class.

The story continues here.

Why I am not only willing to, but plan to get arrested in Washington DC this weekend for your freedom.

The future of religious freedom in America is at risk!  We Must Obey God Rather Than Men!

On Saturday morning I am getting on an airplane to fly to Washington DC where I plan on kneeling down in front of the White House to pray for our President, our leaders and the for the country my children must grow up in. You may ask what this has to do with getting arrested this weekend, prayer is certainly not illegal yet? In most cases you would be right, however not when that prayer takes place on the sidewalk outside the White House. You can stand and take photos, dance, wave your hands, pick your nose or just stand there, however if you kneel down and pray you are breaking the law and face arrest.

So your next question may be why now? Why are you flying to Washington DC to take this stand this weekend?

With the recent Supreme Court ruling affirming Obamacare, the future of religious freedom in America is at risk, and in grave danger of being entirely wiped out. Obamacare will force institutions, churches and individuals to purchase abortion-inducing drugs, and pay for sterilization and abortion in direct opposition to their beliefs, conscience and historic teachings of the Church.

The story continues here.

Chic-Fil-A Breaks World Sales Record

Katie Patlich – News Editor, Townhall

The left’s attempt to damage Chic-Fil-A completely backfired yesterday. Not only did customers wait for hours in line to “eat more chikin” but many Chic-Fil-A locations ran out of food.

The story continues here.

Court Upholds Domestic Drone Use in Arrest of American Citizen

A motion to dismiss charges based on the use of a Predator drone was denied Wednesday

By Jason Koebler     August 2, 2012

A North Dakota court has preliminarily upheld the first-ever use of an unmanned drone to assist in the arrest of an American citizen.

A judge denied a request to dismiss charges Wednesday against Rodney Brossart, a man arrested last year after a 16-hour standoff with police at his Lakota, N.D., ranch. Brossart’s lawyer argued that law enforcement’s “warrantless use of [an] unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft” and “outrageous governmental conduct” warranted dismissal of the case, according to court documents obtained by U.S. News.

[Photo Gallery: The Expansion of the Drone]

District Judge Joel Medd wrote that “there was no improper use of an unmanned aerial vehicle” and that the drone “appears to have had no bearing on these charges being contested here,” according to the documents.

The story continues here.

It begins… Federal Government Sues to Gain Control of Southern State’s Water Supply

Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, August 1, 2012, 5:32 AM

It’s an Obama world…
The federal government is suing to gain control of New Mexico’s water supply.
Las Cruces Sun-News reported:

Clearly, it was jolting news the New Mexico Legislature’s Water and Natural Resources Committee wasn’t prepared for.

During Monday’s committee meeting, in the Barbara Hubbard Room at the Pan American Center Annex, lawyers representing the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, Elephant Butte Irrigation District, and the city of Las Cruces, told the committee that a state Water Court hearing will be at 9 a.m. Wednesday, at the Third Judicial Court Complex, 201 E. Picacho Ave., and the future management of state’s water supply could hang in the balance of the hearing’s outcome.

“Why hasn’t this been front-page news?” asked a surprised Clinton D. Harden Jr., a state senator from Clovis. “This is one of the biggest things ever. Frankly, what we’re looking at is under the camel’s nose. This is an unprecedented legal claim to water.”

The lawyers told the committee the U.S. government is apparently trying to take over legal management of the state’s water supply. The federal government has asserted claims for damages to groundwater in a natural resource damage case in New Mexico involving Chevron/Molycorp. The claim seeks for those damages to be awarded in the form of future water rights management.

The story continues here.

Gun Owner Saves Cop’s Life by Shooting Deranged Gunman! (VIDEO)

Story by: dabneybailey

It’s not every day that you hear the police give a civilian a warm “thank you” for entering a lethal shootout, but that’s exactly what happened in Early, Texas on Sunday. But before we get into the heroic civilian shooter, let’s back up a bit.

See a Man About a Dog

It all began, innocently enough, “as a squabble over dogs.” David Michael House, 58, and Iris Valentina Calaci, 53, were both residents at the Peach House RV Park in central Texas. They were also dog owners, and their pooches allegedly had a nasty habit of relieving themselves on the lawn of neighbor Charles Ronald Conner, 58.

The story continues here.


Attacks on Christianity are Designed to Silence Christians and Keep them Home on Election Day

posted on August 1, 2012 by Gary DeMar
Rush Limbaugh said that the attack on a business like Chick-fil-A is tactical. It’s “a direct assault on Christianity — a direct assault on Christians — with economic punishment thrown in, including threats from government officials that are in direct violation of the Constitution.”From its earliest days, Christianity has been attacked because Christians viewed the State as a “minister of God” (Rom 13:4) and not a god. In some circumstances they “must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29), including Caesar. Dictatorial governments that believe they are god don’t like competition. That’s why in the French and Russian revolutions, God was persona non grata. The same was true in North Korea, Cuba, and Communist China.It’s been said that “we owe the moral force which won our Independence” on the puritan pulpit.[1]

The annual Election Sermon bears witness that our founders “began their civil year and its responsibilities with an appeal to Heaven, and recognized Christian morality as the only basis of good laws.” In addition, the clergy were often consulted by the civil authorities in the colonies, “and not infrequently the suggestions from the pulpit, on election days and other special occasions, were enacted into laws. The statute-book, the reflex of the age, shows this influence. The State was developed out of the Church.”

Enemies of freedom understood the impact that Christians and Christianity had on America. Alexis de Tocqueville observed long ago:
The story continues here.

This article is a bit old but informative as to what is going on with our money.

Biden Spends $1 Million Annually for Weekend Trips

Monday, 04 Jun 2012 05:04 PM  By Ronald Kessler

Ronald Kessler reporting from Washington, D.C. — Last June, President Obama appointed Vice President Joe Biden to root out wasteful government spending. But behind the scenes, it’s a different matter.

Every Friday, Biden takes a helicopter designated as Marine Two from the vice president’s residence to Joint Base Andrews in Maryland and then hops on Air Force Two to fly back to his home in Delaware. At the end of the weekend, he returns on Air Force Two, usually a Boeing C-32.
During warm weather, Biden regularly returns to Andrews on the airplane on Saturdays to play golf at the Air Force base with President Obama. After the golf game, he flies back to Delaware and returns to Washington on the plane on Sunday evening — all at taxpayer expense.

The cost of flying Air Force Two is $22,000 an hour, so each half-hour trip to or from Delaware costs about $10,000. Each golf game costs taxpayers $20,000. At that rate, the annual cost to taxpayers of Biden’s weekend trips is well over $1 million.
The story continues here.

Feds Jail New Mexico Family, Seize Everything They Own for Being Honest Legal Firearms Dealers

posted on June 23, 2012 by da Tagliar
This has got to be one of the grossest miscarriages of law enforcement that I’ve read about lately.

Rick and Terri Reese, along with their two sons Ryin and Remington ran a federally licensed gun shop in Deming, New Mexico.  They kept meticulous records of all the firearms and ammunition they purchased and which were purchased by customers.  They performed the required FBI background checks when necessary.  Basically, they ran their gun shop by the letter of the law for 17 years.

Even much of their hired help was legal as the Reeses often hired law enforcement officers who were either retired or off duty, to work in the gun shop.  This brought in a substantial amount of business with the law enforcement community and agencies.

In 2011, Terri noticed a customer that had made an unusually large number of purchases.  The customer, Penny Torres, told Terri that they were having a family reunion at a ranch in the area and that they all liked to shoot.  Terri was suspicious of Torres story and being the law abiding gun dealer she is, she reported her suspicions to one of her friends that worked with the Luna County Sheriff’s Department.  Terri told him that she suspected Torres might be a ‘straw buyer’ (someone who purchased guns for illegal purposes such as going over the Mexican border to the drug cartels, kind of like what the US government did with Operation Fast and Furious).

The story continues here.

Can the president rewrite federal law?

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano   Published June 21, 2012

Here we go again. Is the Constitution merely a guideline to be consulted by those it purports to regulate, or is it really the supreme law of the land? If it is just a guideline, then it is meaningless, as it only will be followed by those in government when it is not an obstacle to their purposes. If it is the supreme law of the land, what do we do when one branch of government seizes power from another and the branch that had its power stolen does nothing about it?

Late last week, President Obama, fresh from a series of revelations that he kills whomever he pleases in foreign lands, that the US military is actually fighting undeclared wars in Somalia and Yemen, and that the CIA is using cyber warfare — computers — to destabilize innocents in Iran, announced that he has rewritten a small portion of federal immigration law so as to accommodate the needs of young immigrants who came to the US as children and remained here. By establishing new rules governing deportation, rules that Congress declined to enact, the president has usurped the power to write federal law from Congress and commandeered it for himself.

Immigrants should not be used as political pawns by the government. When government does that, it violates the natural law. Our rights come from our humanity, and our humanity comes from God. Our rights are natural and integral to us, and they do not vary by virtue of, and cannot be conditioned upon, the place where our mothers were physically located at the time of our births. Federal law violates the natural law when it interferes with whom you invite to your home or employ in your business or to whom you rent your property or with whom you walk the public sidewalks.

When the government restricts freedom of association based on immutable characteristics — like race, gender or the place of birth — it is engaging in the same type of decision-making that brought us slavery, Jim Crow and other invidious government discrimination. Regrettably, the feds think they can limit human freedom by quota and by geography. And they have done this for base political reasons.

Along comes the president, and he has decided that he can fix some of our immigration woes by rewriting the laws to his liking. Never mind that the Constitution provides that his job is “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and that “all legislative power” in the federal government has been granted to Congress. He has chosen to bypass Congress and disregard the Constitution. Can he do this?

There is a valid and constitutional argument to be made that the president may refrain from defending and enforcing laws that he believes are palpably and demonstrably unconstitutional. These arguments go back to Thomas Jefferson, who refused to defend or enforce the Alien and Sedition Acts because, by punishing speech, they directly contradicted the First Amendment. Jefferson argued that when a law contradicts the Constitution, the law must give way because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and all other laws are inferior and must conform to it.This argument is itself now universally accepted jurisprudence — except by President Obama, who recently and inexplicably questioned the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to invalidate the Affordable Health Care Act on the basis that it is unconstitutional.

Nevertheless, there is no intellectually honest argument to be made that the president can pick and choose which laws to enforce based on his personal preferences. And it is a profound violation of the Constitution for the president to engage in rewriting the laws. That’s what he has done here. He has rewritten federal law.

Only Congress can lay down specifics such as in order to avoid deportation and qualify for a two-year work visa, one must have entered the U.S. prior to age 16 and possess a valid American high school diploma or be a military veteran, as the president now requires. By altering the law in this manner — by constructing the requirements the government will impose — the president has violated his oath to enforce the laws as they are written. His second responsibility in the Constitution (the first is to defend the Constitution) is to enforce federal laws as Congress has written them — hence the employment of the word “faithfully” in the Constitution — not as he wishes them to be.

Congress should have enacted years ago what the president is now doing on his own, because it is unjust to punish children for the behavior of their parents, and it is unjust to restrict freedom based on the place of birth. But this can be remedied only by Congress. If the president can rewrite federal laws that he doesn’t like, there is no limit to his power. Then, he will not be a president. He will be a king.

To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit


Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written six books on the U.S. Constitution. His latest is “ It is Dangerous To Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom.”

DOJ Releases Muslim Terrorist; Stonewalls Inquiries

by William Bigelow 20 Jun 2012 51 post a comment

Barack Obama’s Department of Justice is up to its secret ways again. Last year, six Muslims in south Florida were arrested and charged with sending tens of thousands of dollars to fund the Taliban in Afghanistan.  Now, as Judicial Watch reports, the DOJ has dropped charges against one of them — but when questioned why, the DOJ has stonewalled and remained silent.

The head of the funding operation is a Pakistani imam, Hafiz Muhammed Sher Ali Khan, who ran a mosque in Miami. The others charged were members of his family: his sons, his daughter, and his grandson.

The federal indictment said Khan ran a school in Miami which provided shelter and support for Taliban soldiers and taught children how to kill Americans in Afghanistan.

Just a few days ago, Khan’s son, Irfan Khan, who has been in jail for nearly a year and if convicted, faces 15 years in jail, was suddenly released and charges dropped. Federal prosecutors did not provide any explanation in a one-paragraph filing.

The initial arrest of the six people was widely reported because of the sensitivity with which they were arrested. Under the Obama administration’s new rules of engagement, federal agents actually waited for prayer service to end before they entered the mosque to arrest the family, even taking their shoes off to respect Muslim tradition.

EDITORIAL: Illegal voters: The winning edge

Justice Department works to allow fraudulent votes

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES    The Washington Times

Could illegal voting decide the next presidential election? Steps are being taken by the Justice Department that may help guarantee it.

On Thursday, T. Christian Herren Jr., head of the voting section of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, sent a letter to Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner warning him to cease efforts the state was making to validate its voter rolls. Specifically, Justice said it was concerned that the Sunshine State’s efforts to clean up the registration lists would violate provisions of the 1973 Voting Rights Act and that the state’s actions would have a discriminatory effect. The law covers five Florida counties in which there had been historical cases of voter discrimination.

Florida immediately fired back. “We are firmly committed to doing the right thing and preventing ineligible voters from being able to cast a ballot,” a spokesman for Mr. Detzner said. “We are not going to give up our efforts to make sure the voter rolls are accurate.”

Critics point to the fact that of the 2,700 non-citizens the effort has uncovered thus far, 58 percent appear to be Hispanic. This, they argue, is evidence of the type of discriminatory impact that brings Florida’s efforts under the purview of the Justice Department. This misreads the intent of the law. The 1973 Voting Rights Act was never meant to apply to illegal aliens, and the fact that the majority of unlawfully registered noncitizens are Hispanic tracks with the fact that most of the illegals in Florida are Hispanic. Furthermore, the unlawfully registered aliens have been casting votes. Of the 1,600 registered illegals in Miami-Dade County thus far identified, around two-thirds have actually cast ballots. This is troubling for an extra reason: Illegal-voter participation is much higher than the general public’s.

Illegal or erroneous voter registration is a national problem. A study by the Pew Center on the States, released in February, found 24 million flawed voter registrations nationwide, or one in eight registrations. These include inaccurate or duplicate records, people registered in two or more states and almost 2 million voters who are on the books even though they are deceased. The number of bad registrations is daunting; 24 million is larger than the winning margins of the last five presidential races combined. If the 2012 race is close, the potential impact of fraudulent votes is magnified. The Florida case is especially illustrative. In the contested 2000 vote count, George W. Bush won the state and thus the presidency by just 537 votes. Two weeks ago, Florida found and removed 53,000 dead people from its voter lists.

The Justice Department’s attentions are misplaced. Guaranteeing the legitimacy and legality of elections is a compelling interest of the states, and a power explicitly granted them by the Constitution. In effect, the nation’s chief law-enforcement agency is ignoring the massive problem that Florida has uncovered in favor of focusing on imagined discrimination as the state seeks to rectify it. The fact that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.’s department is seeking to prevent the purge of Hispanic illegal voters, who can be counted on to vote mostly for Barack Obama, gives the whole affair an awful whiff of dirty politics.

Good flip-flop, bad flip-flop

It’s all in the spin

by Ted Nugent


This grand time of year, the Nugent family is deep into flip-flopping, as in the flip-flopping of bluegill and crappie as we reel them in and filet them for the family dinner table. Beyond yummy.

Talk radio HammerGod of logic, Sean Hannity, hit the liberal hypocrisy media nail squarely on the head the other day.

In the epitome of logic celebration, Hannity stated that when a liberal changes positions, liberals chime in that he or she is “evolving”, but when a conservative changes positions that he or she is “flip-flopping” and cannot be trusted.

Hannity, of course, was referring to President Obama’s new view on homosexual marriage. The president has now “evolved” into personally supporting homosexual marriage. How timely.

The story continues here.

Iraq vet brutalized over guns in D.C.

by Emily Miller


The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) seems to have it out for our military. The department is using the city’s pointless firearm registration mandate to harass, arrest and jail servicemen.

Army 1st Sergeant Matt Corrigan was woken in the middle of the night, forced out of his home, arrested, had his home ransacked, had his guns seized and was thrown in jail — where he was lost in the prison system for two weeks — all because the District refuses to recognize the meaning of the Second Amendment. This week, the city dropped all charges against Sgt. Corrigan, but the damage done to this reservist cannot be so easily erased.

This story will describe how Sgt. Corrigan went from sleeping at home at night to arrested. Subsequent installments of the series will cover the home raid without a warrant, the long-term imprisonment and the coverup by MPD.

Sgt. Corrigan, 35, and his attorney Richard Gardiner appeared before Judge Michael Ryan at D.C. Superior Court on Monday. The District’s assistant attorney general moved to dismiss all ten charges against him – three for unregistered firearms and seven for possession of ammunition in different calibers.

The story continues here.

Mission Statement

September 7, 2010

Mission Statement

Berks County Patriots is a non-profit, non-partisan political action group committed to restoring and promoting the conservative values and ideals espoused in America’s founding documents; that “we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights” including life, liberty, property, free speech, a free market, and the pursuit of happiness, and that a limited government is necessary to ensure these rights for the people.